How to stop the retrospective legislation
It is unknown if Labour is going to advance with its plans to retrospectively legislate to wipe out the debts owed by Labour MPs to the taxpayer. If they do, I certainly look forward to the select committee hearings.
Matthew Hooton writing in the SST suggests a range of measures National MPs could try to stop such retrospective legislation – bearing in mind it would be the most corrupt law you could pass short of extending one’s electoral term without a mandate.
Hooton suggests several steps for National:
* Walking out of Parliament
* Boycotting Parliament
* Ask the Governor-General not to give Royal Assent
* Have National’s electorate MPs resign in protest, one by one with by-elections across the country until the government folds
The by-election idea is very interesting. One could start with National’s most marginal seat and justify it on the grounds of allowing the public to vote on the acceptability of such retrospective legislation.
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:47 am
The by-election idea is brilliant!
But nah, National don’t have the balls for it.
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:56 am
They are all silly especially the one about the Governor General, though vaidating legislation for theft of public money is a truly shameless piece of legislation. If it is passed it deserves to be fully tested in the Courts, that is how I would approach it. There will some wrinckle that may not make it effective. But this valiating legislation will test to the limits the Courts upholding any piece of legislation. There have been hints in the past that the courts will refuse the enfore legislation that violates fundamental rights. This legislation would violate the fundamental constitutional principle that all spending must be authorised by an appropriation, – though Parliament does validate appropriations often. But this is different – it is theft by political parties of taxpayers’ money.
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:56 am
The best bit about the repayment call (that he is clever enough NOT say, and that even RB hasn’t noticed) is that labour cannot just repay with 50 cheques of $16,000 -hardly an onerous amount for a group of people all of whom earn well over $100,000
because any labour repayment admits wrongdoing – and as such would admit that their government was illigitimate.
Brash should have done what Hooten suggests right after the election.
He can, indeed he must do so now, but cannot stop at repayment: he must not rest until he has brought down this corrupt government, and until the perptrators are behind bars.
And UN observers???: please! US Marines!
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:08 am
Sinner passing the legislation admits the money was illegally obtained as well – so Labour cannot escape that one. But at least repaying the money undoes the wrong. But if the Labour Party is passing legislation to remove a debt owed by members’ of parliament can those members vote on the legislation under standing orders. Now that will be a test of Wilson, we know the answer of course.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 am
As a National member, I don’t like the idea of triggering multiple by-elections. I don’t think Hooton thought that one through very well. How can National credibly attack Labour for costing the taxpayer $800,000 when that’s probably the cost for 6-10 by-elections?
It might look good on paper, but threatening destructive behaviour in response to corrupt behaviour is unlikely to sit well with voters? Most NZ voters would say “OK, so I’m going to replace the corrupt with the childish – great choice”.
The other three options are far more sensible and would be seen as “constitutionally sensible” as opposed to highly expensive tantrums. In particular, should Labour propose retrospective legislation to fix its corrupt spending, then National should make a point of leaving the debating chambers and select committee rooms and refusing to debate or participate in anything to do with it. What better message could National send that Labour was corrupt than Labour speaking to an empty set of chairs?
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:18 am
Sweep the leg.
Finish her, FINISH HER!!!
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:24 am
I am sure hooten was being tongue in check about the UN observers – I remember him once saying on Labour Radio he didn’t care what the UN thought about anything!
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:26 am
I’m sure you made that comment in jest Murray. I don’t think it wise for National to personalise this matter either – far better for National to talk about the corrupt stench of a tired, selfish and venal Labour government rather than a desire “to get rid of Helen”.
Only people who are already opposed to Helen feel the latter, but if National is supposed to motivate swing voters over to the right, then it is the interests of the country that they need to advocate for.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:32 am
Aaron – it is not the COST of the $800,000 people care about, it is that it was THEFT. If National explained the cost of the byelections as the cost of protecting democracy, then they might get away with it.
And what about National MPs deliberately getting thrown out of Parliament by Wilson, one-by-one, by calling Clark a liar, rather than just walking out?
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:33 am
I’ve got one!
How about we all remember what they did, and then not vote for them at the next election.
As for UN observers, I believe we had some at the last election (not certain they were UN, but we had someone).
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:45 am
Rightkiwi – yes, it is about theft and corruption. And as you say, National “might get away with it”, which suggests that they equally might not. The language you’ve used “to get away with it” suggests that the theorised course of action is probably risky and could potentially backfire.
If National has to then start explaining its course of action, then National’s unnecessary costs to the taxpayer in playing politics becomes the issue, not Labour’s corruption. That’s a dangerous set of circumstances on which to hold a by-election for a marginal seat.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:48 am
Rightkiwi has the answer. Being thrown out of the House (preferably while the cameras are rolling) will result in them fronting the Privileges Committee, which will provide further opportunities to attack, attack, attack, ATTACK. It would achieve a further advantage of tying the Committee up in knots, wasting the time of all the major players.
National should also place on record its intention to conduct an enquiry into the actions of those members of the Police who declined to prosecute recent instances whereby prima facie cases have bee identified. Any who are found to have been on collusion with the Govt, or have been promoted by Clark after making the decisions, should be for the sack.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:57 am
To be coldly cynical about it, the best thing for National would be for Labour & Lapdogs to remain in psychotic denial mode until this legislation passed. Sadly, I notice Cullen has been more *ahem* strategically ambiguous about such legislation over the last week, so I suspect someone’s realising this issue is ‘resonating outside the Beltway (sic)” after all.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:02 am
Pack of limp wristed dandy-flops, cut the grovelling pretence, line up all the the thieving, corrupt, lying, Stalinist socialist scum and deal to them as honourable men must do.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:03 am
“How can National credibly attack Labour for costing the taxpayer $800,000 when that’s probably the cost for 6-10 by-elections?”
Easy–as the cost of restoring some integrity to the election process, it’s a bargain.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 am
I might add that if National stays out of the house and doesn’t vote against this bill then neither UFNZ, the Greens, nor NZF would have to vote in favour
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:11 am
But if the Nats stay and vote, then they’ve effectively legitimized what is an illegitimate government.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:11 am
I suspect any walkout might only be at third reading Graeme. Also one could leave just one Whip in the House to do 48 votes against but still have sybolism of an emprty opposition side.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:39 am
m-m-m-m-matt in the herald says “The Nats will have been very relieved to be caught misusing only $10,000 of taxpayers’ money. They were able to pay it back and opportunistically get themselves on the moral high ground. They wouldn’t have been quite so ready to pay it back if it had been $100,000, of course.”
the idiot overlooks the fact that National (as well as Labour) understood the rules and made the correct decision to stay within the rules. The corrupt labour party being behind in the polls ovr spent to win at any cost and then went onto to steal $800k.
Well the electorate will punish Labour – and rightly so.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:41 am
And so the right takes one more step towards embracing Pinochet as their model.
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:54 am
toms – you are an idiot – the legacy of pinochet is “a brutal dictator who ended democracy and led a regime characterized by torture and favoritism”
sounds moree like clark and her corrupt sleazebags in labour
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:56 am
It would only take one Labour MP to walk out for the same reasons, and the message would be driven home very quickly. Surely there is one MP in the Labour party who values democracy and electoral integrity higher than their own salary.
However doubting that, the Nation by-election idea is a winner. As you say DPF starting with a marginal seat as a ‘test case’ would fan the fire nicely. Ironically by-elections do present a good opportunity to raise the public awareness due to the entitlement to spend public money on advertising.
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:10 am
tim barclay,
As a Lawyer it would be easy to see your perspective that it should go to court. However many of us are not Lawyers and therefore taking the ‘proposed legislation’ any further than ‘proposed’ would appear to be a misfeasance.
It would be bloody good entertainment all the same.
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:12 am
I really hate stating the painfully obvious, bur does anyone else find it bitterly ironic that TomS likes calling others ‘fascist’ while displaying all the symptoms of a pathologically fascist mind?
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 am
I Lair bore goes ahead with retro laws to save it’s butt then why should any citizen of this country be expected to obey the law when Liar bore has affectively shown that the law is only there for the peasants. If this goes through I would except civil unrest, Mr Trotter may indeed be correct when he says blood will be shed but the cause will be his beloved socialists.
I quess there are many like me who feel powerless as we watch criminals do as they wish. If this retro law is put in place why can the taxpayers of this country not tell these wankers we have had enough. I might not file a GST return and I would hope many thousand of others would feel the same. Lets watch these dipsticks run a country without an income, Nr Trotter will indeed be happy, guaranteed civil disorder.
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:25 am
Craig,
Absolutely!
I think he made a typo or two, thy this little variant, I think it’ll work.
And so the right takes one more step towards removing a Pinochet style Govt..
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:32 am
Toms
Or did you just forget to type the obvious….
And so the right takes one more step towards removing the Govt that has been embracing Pinochet as their model.
September 3rd, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Burt:
Well, I never expect TomS to have an obliging word to say about the right in general, or the National Party and it’s leader in particular. Which is fine with me – after all, with friends like Tom who needs enemies?
All the same… it’s just a little creepy listening to Tom’s strident contempt for a free press, elected Parliamentarians or the filthy voting hoi polloi who don’t toe the (Labour) party line. I don’t like anyone – left, right, whatever – who applies the particularly ugly rhetoric of religious ultra-fundamentalism to politics in an ostensibly pluralistic democracy. Least of all while they’re busy demonising their opponents as ‘fascists’ in a most fascistic manner. Much as I hate to say it, the rabid right is every bit as bad as the loony left on this count and my thoroughly bipartisan response is, “oh, fuck off.”
September 3rd, 2006 at 12:11 pm
Craig, correct. In either full manifestation the left or the right produce an elite class living off the labours of the workers. As the mega brain Dr. Cullen would say;
Blindly follow any ideology and end up with a corrupt Govt. – wot’s the cunnection ?
September 3rd, 2006 at 12:45 pm
As a rhetorical question, can anybody here name the last time Royal Assent was refused in our constitutional history, by the Governor-General or anyone else?
Secondly, the model here isn’t Pinochet (that was Chris Trotter last week), but John Kerr and Malcolm Fraser. That alone should tell you how dubious the constitutional territory you’re heading for is.
September 3rd, 2006 at 1:31 pm
Well what is fascism? It isn’t necessarily totally defined by the two classic fascist states of the 20th Century, Italy and Nazi Germany.
Nationalism isn’t even a necessary component of Fascism. Fascism is simply a romantic syncretic ideology combining exclusionist reactionary fear as an organising idea for society with an ideology that links that idea to economic growth. This is important, because for the ugly fear that drives fascism to gain traction it must convince at least part of the elite that it can serve their interests better than democracy.
To extrapolate from the general to the particular, in our case, we have a romanticised view of an “ideal” 1950′s NZ and ongoing attacks on the institutions of state on the grounds they are overrun by pinkos, gays, and brown radicals
linked to an rigid adherence to an extreme economic ideology that is heavily supported by our corporate business elites.
What I see from National – a organised and deliberate attempt to divide the nation along class and race and liberal/conservative lines in an attempt to subjugate the individuals liberty to a corporate “good Kiwi bloke” identity, and a cynical desire to lie their way to office to restart their economic program – is at very least quasi-fascist. This doesn’t surprise me, because its obvious to anyone with eyes to see much of National’s campaign agenda and techniques have come straight from the fascist neo-cons who run the United States at the moment.
This carry on from Hooten – surely the most *ahem* emotional and childish right winger ever to be given a newspaper column – is to me, then, simply another attempt by the vehicle of corporate fascism the National party to destabilise the institutions of state and impose a political settlement that entrenches the unfair social and economic agenda of the 1980′s and 90′s.
The business right in this country and its cheerleaders here is like a junkie that for a few, brief, heady years in the mid 80′s experienced free heroin, and simply can’t give up his quest to return to those days of free hits. No matter what stands in the way.
September 3rd, 2006 at 1:36 pm
Seeing as the gov gen is very new, it may be that he does do something very different from previous governers general. Hopefully that involves turning down some legislation.
September 3rd, 2006 at 1:36 pm
As an Aaron Bhatnagar supporter, I completely disagree with everything he says.
September 3rd, 2006 at 2:30 pm
Toms:
Why don’t you be a little less hypocritical: instead of bludging off the wealthy and envying them the privilege of living in a relatively comfortable society, why don’t you put aside a little bit of your dole money every week, and buy yourself a gun? Then you can shoot a few Nats and start a civil war. Then we’ll see just how committed to the socialist fight you are.
September 3rd, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Its simply fascinating to me to see the likes of ‘toms’ attempting to defend the indefensible …. and so I say, go to it ….
because with every utterance your position is made to look that so much more ridiculous.
Any attempt to promote validating retrospective legislation will consign the Labour Party to the dusbin of history.
September 3rd, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Aaron I always use Karate Kid quotes when I’m serious!
Or possibly not. It just seemed to fit on this occasion.
Can Don do a flying crane kick anyway? I’d pay to see it.
September 3rd, 2006 at 4:28 pm
A good solid thigh kick follwed by sweeping the other leg usually works Murray. For added effect place 2 or 3 good solid thigh kicks on the same thigh, preferably the same spot. Then sweep the other leg, after the kicks it will have all the weight, that is till you sweep it, at which stage the weight shifts to the floor
September 3rd, 2006 at 4:48 pm
David – the Governor-General doesn’t have the power to refuse assent to legislation. That power existed in the Letters Patent 1917, but it was never used, and was removed (deliberately I might add) from the Letters Patent 1983.
There was a case, however, back in 1999 (I can’t remember the citation) where a company sought to injunct the Clerk of the House from handing the Governor-General the legislation banning logging on the West Coast, on the grounds that the Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights 1689 forbade the Crown from breaking a prior agreement, in the case an agreement to allow logging. The Courts struck out the injunction however, because they didn’t have the power to grant it. Back to square one.
I would note, however, that the President of Ireland has the power to either send a Bill of the Irish Parliament to a referendum, the Supreme Court or to refuse it outright. Perhaps something to consider in a New Zealand republic…
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:27 pm
I like Mr Hooton he is a “fix bayonets and let’s charge boys” sorta guy. Aside from taking coin from lefties in a professional capacity (consultancy for Action Hobson in Auckland in 2004), I admire his hotspur and he is always interesting. As an aside he was suggesting only four months or so that Don Brash was wounded and should be bayoneted or fall on his sword for the good of the Party. Some bounce back for the ‘takin charge’ Don.
However he illustrates the point of my post perfectly. Political conflict in a democracy requires one essential quality: judgement. Parliament constrains, confines, controls and ritualises political conflict. How far one takes the conflict and the tactics used are a matter for judgement.
Any suggestion about the Governor General, walking out and/or staying out of Parliament is very very MEXICAN and not at all deserving of the second oldest political party in a mature democracy. National should focus on winning in the ballot box by convincing middle New Zealand that Labour has done its dash. Their real crime is to have no programme worthy of gaining the financial support of their fellow citizens. And that’s why they raid the taxpayer.
If National were to go down the By election route by the second one the seat would be lost either to Labour or the Act candidate as centre-right voters punish National for ensuring that politics completely dominates their lives. Imagine the analysis of the costs as MP’s fly in to campaign in the constituency let alone the cost of the by-election itself.
As I said very Mexican.
Some facts wouldn’t go amiss either. There is no legally definitive determination that the spend on the pledge cards is election activity for the purposes of the Electoral Act 1993. National could have lodged a two fold electoral petition against Labour constituency MPs (by dividing the spend by the Constituency Labour MPs and saying that their declaration of expenses under accounted by this amount) and second and less likely to be successful against the allocation of Labour List MPs. The High Court would have made a definitive determination as to whether the pledge cards were electoral activity and therefore electoral expenses and required to be in Labour’s MP’s or the Party’s return.
This is the method Parliament has set down for disputing an election result or spending issues relating to it. In the absence of that all we have is an opinion of the Chief Electoral Officer and concurrence by the Electoral Commission but the opinion is just an opinion. I put no weight on the actions of the NZ Police as they are hopeless at electoral matters and consider them a waste of their time and resources. The fact that they decided not to proceed on the criminal offence is irrelevant. National is aware of the method of determining whether the pledge card is an electoral activity and therefore an expense – they chose not to do that within the timeframes permitted by the Electoral Act 1993. They were rumoured to be considering a petition against Rodney Hide in Epsom – perhaps this blinded them to the bigger picture. And they were aware of the pledge card issue as the deadline for electoral petitions passed.
As to the legality of the spend itself this maybe conclusively determined if and only if the High Court accepts jurisdiction to do a declaration. It may not of course citing Parliamentary Privilege (albeit perhaps extending the scope or understanding of the privilege). Even if it does the illegality actually falls on the statutory corporation who spends the money not the Labour MP’s and nothing legally compels Labour to repay.
I doubt Labour will consider retrospective legislation on this issue if the High Court declines jurisdiction to hear the case in fact I think retrospective legislation is unlikely even if the High Court provides a declaration. What is much more likely is a revamp of the Parliamentary Service rules on the use of the funds (saying the rules were unclear) and legislation introducing some form of direct state funding of the Political parties themselves that may also touch on how Parliamentary spending is dealt with in the future.
Voting for legislation to fix this illegality or more likely alleged illegality provides no upside for any of the minor parties and simply prolongs the trauma for Labour.
National in the meantime should focus on winning the next election and not brawling in the streets, pestering the GG or Parliamentary walkouts that are’t really walkouts.
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
The by-election idea is initially appealing but I doubt National would do it. If they have the by-election in a safe-seat it’ll be dismissed as a meaningless gesture and if they have it in a marginal seat it’s too damn risky. Politics is too unpredictable for the Nats to be guaranted of a win and a loss would be a devastating humiliation. I wouldn’t risk it.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 pm
so what else can national do to protest this move? brash says “corruption”. just issuing press statements and voting losing votes doesn’t seem like enough
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:17 pm
so what else can national do? brash says “corruption”. just issuing press statements and casting losing votes doesn’t seem like enough
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:28 pm
Just one question Innocentlll, do you think the punters will be impressed? I fucking hope not!!!!!!
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:33 pm
rightkiwi asks:
so what else can national do? brash says “corruption”
brash kind of says corruption, but he doesn’t really mean it.
Go to the national party website – you have to look really hard to find him saying it! If he really believed the govt was systemically corrupt it will be all over that site and everything every national party person said in big letters. AND – Rodney Hide, for goodness sake – wouldn’t be saying that on the key issue Helen isn’t corrupt! let alone Mike “let Field fight a bi-election & get back to cabinet” Moore, the high & supreme court judges, David Henry, the university law professors especially the Palmers etc etc etc.
If the country thought the govt was corrupt – or even a significant portion of it thought the govt was corrupt – all these people would be behaving very differently. Which civil service dept head has resigned because they believe their ministerial directives are illigitimate?? NONE! Which judge because they believe the new GG was appointed to be Helen’s stooge? NONE! Where is the 20million dollar campaign by the “NZ democracy institute” alleging this? the protests at every streetcorner? When is National refusing any and all cooperation with a corrupt & illigitimate govt? and on and on??
Someone earlier said:
Well the electorate will punish Labour – and rightly so.
and Don’s said the same. The point is that if the NZ system is corrupt, the voters wont get the chance. You have to beleive that the voters watned a Natl govt last time around, but labour corruptly bought the election with tax payers money and presumably will do so again and again and again – e.g. by
legislation introducing some form of direct state funding of the Political parties
which you have to believe is in and of itself corrupt.
Either National is playing party games because it lost last time – or
they really believe what they are saying. But they don’t act like they believe it.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:33 pm
I am not proposing taking the “proposed legislation” to court. I am proposing that once such legislation is enacted then it be tested fully in the Courts. I also add that the Labour Party in proposing such legislation is admitting their spending is illegal otherwise why enact it. But once they enact it then I am suggesting it be fully and exhaustively tested in the Courts.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Hmm this is what a President could be used for. Sounds like another reason for a Republic?
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:05 pm
You guys are living in la-la land. National are a bunch of pussies just as interested in not causing a stir and keeping their own seats (rather than risking losing all that lovely taxpayer money via a by-election) as their scheming socialist colleagues. Come on, if Don Brash is the best they have then the soppy bus-ticket slappings on the back of Helen’s wrists during question time will never be bettered. Yes Labour are corrupt and bent on turning the entire nation into a beneficiary society but where is an electable alternative? The numbers on benefit/criminals/illegal immigrants etc are greater than the number who aren’t. The end is nigh folks. Must get another G&T…
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:09 pm
Well Mr Barclay
It is for the reasons you suggest that Labour would be crazy to introduce any legislation on this point – the last thing Labour wants is involvement in this issue by the Courts. The only fly in the ointment is this declaratory judgment case that might embarrassingly determine the illegality issue. That would be unfortunate for Labour but it might not happen. If it doesn’t then Labour will simply say there is a range of opinions and therefore the rules must have been unclear and therefore need changing and clarifying. They will put the “corruption” thing down to “politics” and move on. After all they may have paid the poll price, why keep talking about it if you are not going to repay it (which they aren’t) and any new law only compounds the poll damage.
The Courts already have a floodgates problem with the declaratory judgment case: if the High Court accepts jurisdiction it will be a significant development in the scrutiny of Parliament and what MP’s do. It will certainly not be the last case. The next one would be on using flights, accommodation, rental cars, taxis, phones and staff on electioneering i.e. travelling to election meetings, public meetings, tv debates, party conferences – all of which is currently treated as “parliamentary business” which is arguable and the cost of which goes up dramatically in election year. If one were being conservative one could seek such a declaration only relating to the three months prior to an election – although why on principle this timeframe applies I don’t know. The indirect taxpayer subsidisation of campaign activity is substantial and shouldn’t in principle be treated any differently than pamphleteering
September 3rd, 2006 at 10:45 pm
Supposing for a moment we managed a 2008 election that looks like a re-run 2005 on steroids. National start campaigning months before anyone else, outspending all the other parties combined 2:1 and their good mates the EB exercise their legitimate “right to free speech” by matching the right-wing spend dollar for dollar. Let’s have both our major comemrcial media corporates pitch openly for Brash just for good measure. You know…really put some heat on the corrupt “Liabore scum”….etc.
Geeze guys, you just might pull it off. But then of course money doesn’t buy elections does it?
September 4th, 2006 at 2:38 am
David,
doesn’t a party need a certain number of people in the house to be able to vote.
i have no idea what the specifics are but i’m sure national would need more than 1 person in the house to vote for them.
September 4th, 2006 at 7:29 am
Logix –
Forget the EB sidestep that you’ve somehow been sold by HC and Labour. Given that Labour explicitly helped design and approve the Union propaganda that probably had more money spent on it than the EB pamphlets you have no case there.
Which is why Labour made a big deal of it before the election as a scaremongering tactic but aren’t going anywhere near it now. Because there is no way they can afford to lose all the free electioneering they receive *every* year from the Unions.
September 4th, 2006 at 8:01 am
Innocent – you show how true the maxim a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. One can not simply allocate party vote material to electorates and then lodge electorate electoral petitions. Guaranteed to lose. Innocent also overlooks that petitions must be filed within 28 days – well before the extent of the pledge card spending was known.
Innocent then suggests a court of appeal petition against allocation of list MPs. Again he overlooks the 28 day deadline but more importantly this only allows a challenge on the procedure of allocating list seats and accusations of corrupt practive are banned.
In r3eality the Electoral Acr has almost no deterrence against a party over-spending because onlu candidates can be found guilty of corrupt practice and lose their seats. A party’s maximum risk is an official facing a penalty.
The only way to have got a court ruling on whether the pledge cards were election activity was if the Police had done their job and prosecuted as they were asked to. The Police incompetence was so great, the issue never made it to court.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:01 am
* Walking out of Parliament
* Boycotting Parliament
* Ask the Governor-General not to give Royal Assent
* Have National’s electorate MPs resign in protest, one by one with by-elections across the country until the government folds
* Keep toys in cot.
* Make some pretense at behaving like a government in waiting.
I don’t mean to quibble (oh what the hell, let’s quibble) – if legislation is passed then it will be passed by Parliament. Probably by every party except National. Won’t National look cool showing their contempt for basic democratic process. Irrespective of what you think Labour’s done, this is not claiming the moral high ground.
Oh, and if all the electorate MPs resign and the have by-elections, the BEST that can happen – in terms of bringing down the government – is they end up with the same number of MPs, right? Ooo. Scary.
Stupid ideas, the lot of them.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:08 am
Lyndon – if you regard 61 MPs voting to exempt themselves from paying back the taxpayer money they legally owe as “basic democratic process” then you have a different definition of it to me.
What if 61 MPs vote to delay the next election by seven years? Should that also be respected?
September 4th, 2006 at 9:31 am
Peter – you need 75% of your MPs to be in the buildings but only one to be in the debating chamber.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:34 am
Hm.
Partly I’m just overreacting to the painting it as just Labour thing. Of course, they would be the biggest player. Given that such legisilation does not presently exist, we’ll have to see.
Suffice to say, the answer to your question is ‘no’. I’ll work on that.
If I was being petty I would point out that the length of the parliamentary term is entrenched, which would require more MPs and which indicates the importance we give that particular issue as opposed to others.
Of course, I understand they could take a mojority vote to disable the entrenching legislation…
Anyway, my reaction is that the boycotting option is – possibly – the only one that wouldn’t make the National caucus look like petulant children. Of course, I’ve been wrong before.
I imagine going to the Governor General would be not unlike a few other things National has tried lately – trying something that’s wildly unlikely to work and then claiming bias and corruption when it doesn’t work.
September 4th, 2006 at 10:13 am
and..um…about that (unpaid) gst bill of nationals..?
(how much is that for again..?..)
so..you are claiming the hems of nationals skirts are laundry-white..eh..?
wanna buy some magic beans..?..a bridge..?..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
September 4th, 2006 at 10:24 am
Just to prove I’m not overly into defending Labour – Phil, National did TRY to pay it back.
September 4th, 2006 at 1:12 pm
Phil U – Check yuour facts, National paid the money it owed broadcasters, but didn’t make a big hoo-ha about it. Cullen confirmed it in the house last week.
National should simply filibuster the bill for eternity – get members to make oral submissions, insist on closure motions not being moved until every MP has had 4 speaking slots allowed in the standing orders. Then walk-out at the end of the third reading.
September 4th, 2006 at 1:18 pm
David no need to be insulting – would go toe to toe with you on electoral matters anyday my friend.
In Section 231 of the Electoral Act 1993 it’s actually within 28 days of the notification of the result by the Returning Officer or within 28 days of the payment of the bill for the pledge cards. Of course the “within 28 days of the payment of the bill” sort of begs the question as to whether it is an electoral activity and therefore an expense. If the “within 28 days of payment” was actually after the “within 28 days of the declaration of the result” period the High Court would have to determine whether the pledge card was actually an electoral activity. I don’t actually know when the bill was paid perhaps you could tell us. DPF can you see the point though?
A prudent course of action would be to file within the 28 days of the declaration of the result. Yes it would require National to craft the complaint well before it physically sighted Labour’s Party electoral return (which must be filed within 50 days of the declaration of the result) to confirm it wasn’t accounted for. However looking at Labour’s previous returns (which National should have copies of in its files) one would notice no pledge card accounted for in 1999 or 2001 returns of donations and expenses. The law requires the pledge card to be individually accounted for. Ye gads it wasn’t there in either of the last two times when we all know they did cards. Doesn’t take rocket scientist to work out that Labour would do no different this time.
That why I cannot work out how National missed that these cards where paid for by public funds I always thought this. Perhaps Labour did previously return them (when they put an authorization statement on the card) but I doubt it. Perhaps DPF could consult Labour’s previous returns for us.
DPF correctly says that the grounds for an electoral petition over the allocation of list seats to the Court of Appeal is only permitted in limited circumstances that is why I suggested allocating the cost to each successfully elected constituency Labour MP and the petition regards the allocation of list seats in the alternative. The trick is to get the matter before the High Court actually.
I also agree that allocation of the expenses of the pledge card to each MP is problematic given the lack of coverage issue and is unlikely therefore to be successful on point. However it is still worth a shot given the conflict between sections 214(2) & (3) with (3) giving the Court some latitude.
However the purpose of the petitions is for the High Court to determine whether the pledge card is an electoral activity first off and then where should be it accounted for and if it held it were an Party electoral activity and therefore an expense then the proper place for it is in the Labour Party’s return rather than individual returns of Labour MP’s.
One must frame the cause of action in a manner recognized by the Act. Once the High Court accepts it, it has wide discretion as to orders. A possible order in this situation is to find against National on point but order that the pledge card appear in Labour return of Party Expenses and Donations. National would also get wacked with costs but it would be a worse situation for Labour who now have conclusively busted through the spending limit.
It would also compound their problems on the legality of the parliamentary spend. It isn’t likely that National would be heavily dealt too as there is a real live legal issue here.
Regarding the Police, actually proving something is an electoral activity and therefore an expense to a criminal standard in a case held in the District Court (most likely) with possibly a Police Sergeant Prosecutor is actually a tougher road than going the High Court electoral petition route. Nor would the decision in the District Court (if indeed it is heard there) be particularly persuasive on the point. Of course National would not be represented itself in the case either. I have no faith in the Police on electoral matters – they simply are not interested nor do they understand the law – they want to go out a fight real crime, and not deal with middle class political game playing and pamphleteering . I am surprised DPF believed otherwise.
September 4th, 2006 at 1:58 pm
Innocent – if you wish to post under a real name, then your knowledge is more likely to be respected. Anyone can seert they are an expert.
Labour did not include it in previous returns – I have sighted them. Because the last two elections were not close before 2005, I don’t think anyone worried about spending limits checks and did they include pledge cards.
Likewise I think only in 05 did both major parties get even close to the limit, again hence why earlier years had little scrutiny.
Your ideas are all good with hindsight maybe, but who could have known teh Police would prove to be so incompetent in not putting it before a Judge.
September 4th, 2006 at 2:48 pm
I assert no particular expertise, the value of my contribution is solely based on the content but I agree it is all very well being wise after the event. The extent to which Labour deploys resources of the State for its own political ends is breathtaking. But its also their downfall in that it structurally weakens them. Unless they mainline the taxpayers resources they are lost. Mike Moore would never have used taxpayer resources on the pledge card first because its unwise and second he wouldn’t want to admit the Party cannot pay for its own election material. That is not Helen’s Labour – they have no shame.
We await the declaratory judgment case with baited breath to see whether the High Court will check em a bit.
As to the police and electoral matters – when was they last time they prosecuted on an Electoral Act 1993 or Local Electoral Act 2001 matter? I honestly cannot recall but it’s extremely rare. I have dealt with them twice on electoral matters – good blokes but they don’t have a clue and they think it’s a waste of their time and resources.
Perhaps David we will have to get a bit West Wing with National appointing Counsel to the Leader of the Opposition in election year – might be a wise investment to ensure National’s own compliance and more particularly the compliance of others. Would be a first for New Zealand but it would signal National’s determination to ensure electoral laws are upheld.
I impart my apostolic blessing.
September 4th, 2006 at 6:23 pm
Innocent – you are right on the using resources of the state. We should not forget the obscene $15 ad campaign for WFF which teh Auditor-General also had to pare back.
Thansk for your contributions and apologies if I got snarky.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
Lyndon: “Oh, and if all the electorate MPs resign and the have by-elections, the BEST that can happen – in terms of bringing down the government – is they end up with the same number of MPs, right? Ooo. Scary.”
Actually, there are two things that would be better than that:
1. National would get to hammer the Labour scum for being the lying, thieving, corrupt, immoral shits that they are….on and on and on…. right through until the next election.
2. National would be able to attrit Labour’s financial resources prior to the next general election.
September 5th, 2006 at 8:05 am
Don Brash has said on Morning Report that National will consider walking out of Parliament.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:48 am
Mike Moore would never have used taxpayer resources on the pledge card first because its unwise and second he wouldn’t want to admit the Party cannot pay for its own election material. That is not Helen’s Labour – they have no shame.
Or maybe they are now up against a National Party that is getting at least 2:1 more than them in donations from large anonymous sources.
September 5th, 2006 at 9:56 am
National would get to hammer the Labour scum for being the lying, thieving, corrupt, immoral shits that they are
Stay on message, that should have been :
lying, thieving, corrupt, immoral STALINIST shits