NZ First to pay it back – probably!
Congratulations to NZ First who have said “We have the capacity to pay, we will pay, but when we know what we’re paying and why we are paying it”.
While there is some wriggle room, it is a very welcome statement, reinforcing MPs are not above the law.
This now leaves only two out of eight parties off-side. The common sense of United Future doesn’t yet extend to a statement they will pay it back. And we have Labour whose strategist Pete Hodgson has declared that under no circumstances whatsoever will they pay back even a cent.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Winston First
September 25th, 2006 at 10:20 am
One wonders if United Future can pay it back at all. I suspect from Peter Dunne’s less than balanced comments that the answer may be no – either that or he is continuing in the same vein as his election night speech.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:30 am
Labour is finished then. The realities of minority Government have now come home. There is no majority in Parliament for validating legislation. Why the idea was ever floated I simply do not know. Labour should have said they will study the AGs report carefully and if it is clear, money should be repaid to the Crown they will do so. END of comment. Instead they have been flying off in all directions bringing them into total disrepute. Whether this is enough to finish them is moot. But Brash has played his hand calling them corrupt and National will allow that hand to be played out before making any moves, if ever, against Brash.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:34 am
What about the Progressives?
September 25th, 2006 at 10:36 am
What about the Progressives?
September 25th, 2006 at 10:37 am
mick – they didn’t mis-spend any of their leaders fund, so have nothing to repay.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:38 am
Gotta love Tim Barclay
“Labour is finished then”
“Whether this is enough to finish them is moot”
Tim Barclay, covering all the options!
September 25th, 2006 at 10:46 am
David,
Paying it back is NOT the point. The law of this country was (allegedly) broken – by the governing party no less. And you seem to indicate that paying it back is sufficient. Once paid back you will no doubt be congratulating Labour.
This government has shown themselves to be moral pygmies and corrupt evaders of the facts. Don’t let them off the hook by simply focusing on a Pay it Back campaign.
Darnton vs Clark will be interesting.
Julian
September 25th, 2006 at 10:48 am
David,
Paying it back is NOT the point. The law of this country was (allegedly) broken – by the governing party no less. And you seem to indicate that paying it back is sufficient. Once paid back you will no doubt be congratulating Labour.
This government has shown themselves to be moral pygmies and corrupt evaders of the facts. Don’t let them off the hook by simply focusing on a Pay it Back campaign.
Darnton vs Clark will be interesting.
Julian
September 25th, 2006 at 10:55 am
Well, I’m sure Winston has a little book of e-mails proving that Kevin Brady is having an affair with Don Brash, therefore he’s an incompetent National Party slag and nobody needs to play back anything.
September 25th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Fully agree with Julian. I posted some time ago that the outcome of this should be a criminal prosecution of Helen Klark and her close cronies. Whereas “Pay It Back” is a convenient slogan to deflect Labour’s campaign to divert public attention from the issue, the need for justice to takes its course should not be ignored. A conviction and a jail term would be so good, not to mention a fresh election.
Kyoto Pete Hodgson on Agenda- “You will see us respond as long as National calls us corrupt, and what we respond with is our business.”
September 25th, 2006 at 11:05 am
“Paying it back is NOT the point. The law of this country was (allegedly) broken – by the governing party no less”
Did National not do exactly the same thing but then pay it back?
“A conviction and a jail term would be so good”
For Mr Brash as well?
September 25th, 2006 at 11:09 am
Sonic,
The difference is H2 was repeatedly told what Labour was doing was breaking the law.
Did they stop? Hell no, they just decided they were above the law, and if not, they could change it after the election anyway.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:13 am
What about ACT? I haven’t seen anything about Rodney agreeing to pay it back.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Sorry Mick, if the argument is that “paying it back” does not suffice, then the same holds true for National.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:16 am
Sonic said:
“Did National not do exactly the same thing but then pay it back?
“A conviction and a jail term would be so good”
“For Mr Brash as well?”
If National broke the law then they also should be subject to legal sanction and so should all other parties who have done so. There are serious constitutional issues here which are being (conveniently) ignored by the media and by most people.
Julian
PS. I most certainly do not support the National party. My comments are posted due to my disgust at the contempt for the law shown by this (Labour) government.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:18 am
Sonic the “finished” comment was made regarding the validating legislation strategy. I concede it is “moot” whether the Labour Government is finished.
September 25th, 2006 at 11:29 am
The implication that National broke the law in the same way that the Klark government did is not correct. The circumstances were completely different, most obviously in Klark’s deliberate flouting of the law and also now, the contempt she and her cronies have shown for the law subsequent to the fact.
Kyoto Pete Hodgson on Agenda- “You will see us respond as long as National calls us corrupt, and what we respond with is our business.”
September 25th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Fair enough Tim.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
Southern Raider – they said they would a while back, but in a rather unclear statement that sounded like a bit of a hedge. Something like “we’ll pay it back unless Labour gets this validating legislation thing to fly in which case we’ll happily be pragmatic and avoid paying cash we don’t literally HAVE to”
September 25th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
Not to rain in on NZF’s love parade, but wasn’t Winston Peters reported yesterday as saying he couldn’t make “head or tail” of the A-G’s provisional findings, and also making loud yappy noises about law suits against those alleging corrupt practices? Once again, I suggest that we all need to take a deep breath and let the A-G get on with finalising his report.
September 25th, 2006 at 12:23 pm
Why would the money go back to the Crown consolidated account.
Labour was entitled to spend the money they mistakenly or wrongly did so. If they repay money to Parliamentary Service then their allocation will be up by that amount which they are free to spend. This has been the case with every other repayment of wrongly spent members support allocation.
Why should Labour be down up to $800k.
Remember people the taxpayer has lost nothing in this. Labour would not have finished the financial year ended 30 June 2006 with $800k or whatever left unspent had it not funded the pledge card. That is the only way the funds spent on the pledge card would have gone back to the consolidated account.
If I were Labour I would repay over two years on one of DPF’s MP levy formulas and spend the money on an advertising campaign. Put the ads in front of the Auditor General for pre approval and judicial review him (using their allocation) for unreasonableness if he refuses to provide an opinion as to whether they comply with the rules given that he has a clear view of what those rules say and can provide this opinion prior to publication just as well and post publication. On his proposal so long as one was clear of the three months prior to an election, didn’t ask for votes, money or members it would be sweet.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
If I were labour I would be ashamed to show my face in public. A position that wouldn’t sit well with Winston. He wants to be popular and stealing money just got very unpopular. No surprise he’s keeping his options open to see which way he needs to jump.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:32 pm
On TVNZ the PM refused to say that Labour would not pay back the money under any circumstance.She is starting a tactical retreat I think
September 25th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Actually since Winston took Clarkson to court for alleged over spending I fail to see how he can do anything but pay back anything found to be owing. To support Labour in any way if they continue to state “We will not pay it back” is a joke.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
On TVNZ the PM refused to say that Labour would not pay back the money under any circumstance.She is starting a tactical retreat I think
September 25th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
tactical retreat… Big and stron like Helen Clark, until the opinion polls bring you down to earth.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Helen-pay the money back.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
me thinks – it is due time the femianzi black widow thinks about crawling back into that putrid dark hole .
September 25th, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Helen-pay the money back.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Um, Dad4Justice, well done. Do you actually have anything remotely constructive to say about the topic of this thread? Or are you feeling staunch behind the cloak of anonymity?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
Could it be possible the dangerous black widow feminazi bitch is thinking about crawling back down into that putrid hole she came from. Winny’s actions seem to indicate this ?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Burt:
“Actually since Winston took Clarkson to court for alleged over spending I fail to see how he can do anything but pay back anything found to be owing. To support Labour in any way if they continue to state “We will not pay it back” is a joke”
Actually Burt that is the point.
No prosecution was taken and no electoral petition considered the pledge cards or the Brethren activity either. Peters took an electoral petition – his was the only one out of the last election.
A concession of wrongful or mistaken spending using the members support allocation isn’t a concession that this spending is an electoral activity for the purposes of the Electoral Act and therefore to be included in Labour return of electoral donations and expenses. This will never be known.
I guess if one really wanted an authoritative view on this one could refer the matter to a Royal Commission (with powers pursuant to the Commission of Inquiry Act 1908) on the Electoral Matters. Such a Commission could also consider whether there was a link between National and the Exclusive Brethren. Members of the Brethren and Heather Simpson could be summoned to provide evidence under Oath.
In the absence of a case under the Electoral Act, this would provide the most definitive view on these matters.
September 25th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Funny that people don’t have much sympathy for the “dads 4 justice” people.
Do you think this might have anything to do with phrases such as “dangerous black widow feminazi bitch”?
September 25th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
You might not have sympathy for d4j people but who cares what you think . The pm is a lying snake – she wouldn’t know how to tell the truth . You opinion and my differ but who gives a hoot !!
September 25th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
D4J people who are they ???? I am dad4justice -I am a person – not people . I don’t want sympathy just honesty and justice , two words you would not know if you support a lying snake as Clark has proved to us all many times over .
September 25th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
so innocentIII
The point is that Winston has very strong views on it when it effects his own electorate but sides with the Govt when it’s … in his own best interest?
Look either the man has principals and thinks all over spending should be tested in court or he hasn’t. Why is he still poodle to the Govt when it has stated very publicly that it sees no need to discuss it further, move on.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
D4J people who are they ???? I am dad4justice -I am a person – not people . I don’t want sympathy just honesty and justice , two words you would not know if you support a lying snake as Clark. That thing has proved to us all many times over she is corrupt .
September 25th, 2006 at 2:03 pm
D4J people who are they ???? I am dad4justice -I am a person – not people . I don’t want sympathy just honesty and justice , two words you would not know if you support a lying snake as Clark. That thing has proved to us all many times over she is corrupt .
September 25th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Actually Dad4Justice, unless you have the gumption to put your name to your scrawlings, I don’t think your opinion counts for much when you spray around defamatory content like it’s going out of fashion.
I note that Chuck Bird, who’s currently banned from Kiwiblog for a month, has links with the men’s rights movement: http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/sundaystartimes/0,2106,3807117a6442,00.html. I don’t suppose Dad4Justice and Chuck Bird are one and the same?
September 25th, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Burt:
Whether you have a high or low opinion of Winston Peters, the fact remains any allegation that the pledge cards are electoral activities of Labour or that the Brethren activities where done with the authority of the National party will never been known.
They will remain just that: allegations.
Of course this a different question from whether what the Parties did that the Auditor General says is not in accord with the rules covering the use of these resources is indeed against those rules or some statutory provision.
For clarity one should not mix them together.
If National wants some clarity on the pledge cards and Labour some clarity on the Brethren activity under the Electoral Act they could refer these matters to a Royal Commission on Electoral Matters with Commision of Inquiry powers on these questions.
Clearly however National should consider whether it is advisable that its own members and members of the Exclusive Brethren could be summoned and asked to provide evidence under oath. Likewise Labour should consider whether those involved in the pledge card issue are similarily summoned.
It would be interesting to see whether Labour or National are brave enough to propose this.
September 25th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
And we call this a democracy?
Pay it back AND call a snap election
September 25th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
On TVNZ the PM refused to say that Labour would not pay back the money under any circumstance.She is starting a tactical retreat I think
September 25th, 2006 at 2:55 pm
Graham Miller, has David Farrar appointed you to help monitor the blog? If so, why do you not delete my post? I use my own name not pseudonyms.
The following article explains why I sent my email to Mallard.
Here are the facts.
If Mr Mallard had not threatened to dish the dirt about National MPs’ personal lives none of this would have happened AND if Helen did not think she was above the law and not talked about legislating around the Auditor Generals final report not of this would happened.
BTW- Graham how do we know you are not Peter Davis?
Election spending behind Davis pic release
24 September 2006
The man who gave a magazine images of Prime Minister Helen Clark’s husband being embraced by a man on election night says his main motivation was the election spending issue.
But Chuck Bird said today that he also wanted to stop Labour from “blackmailing political parties”.
“My message to Miss Clark is: pay back the money,” he said, referring to the $446,000 of taxpayer’s funds it spent on its election pledge card.
Mr Bird passed on the images to Investigate magazine, saying he had got them from a contact.
They show Mr Clark’s husband, Peter Davis, being hugged and apparently kissed by a man identified by the Sunday Star-Times last week as Auckland GP Ian Scott.
Dr Scott told the newspaper that, while he was gay, Dr Davis was not.
Meanwhile, Miss Clark accused her opponents of trying to attack her husband with baseless, “school boy smutty rumours”.
Mr Bird said people could interpret the pictures however they wanted.
He said he decided on his action after Labour frontbencher Trevor Mallard alluded in Parliament to an alleged affair between National leader Don Brash and Business Roundtable deputy chairwoman Diane Foreman.
Mr Mallard then threatened to dish the dirt about National MPs’ personal lives.
Mr Bird said he issued an implied threat of his own by sending an E-mail to Mr Mallard asking him “who’s the dude in the blue suit that’s kissing Helen’s husband?”
While Mr Bird, 62, has been associated with the men’s rights group Menz and also opposed what he described as gay militants, he said he acted alone when he contacted Investigate.
“It was an individual act,” he said.
“I’m taking responsibility for it. I’m not dragging in another group or a political party.”
September 25th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
This is DPF’s blog – and he’s quite capable of exercising his own editorial discretion.
I reiterate my original point: a person who sprays around defamatory content, as “Dad4Justice” was doing, tends to hide behind the cloak of anonymity. I merely suggested that “Dad4Justice” might wish to make a more constructive contribution to this thread. As it happens, this was precisely why DPF banned PhillipJohn earlier today.
As for your other deflection ruse, oh yes, I’m to Peter Davis as you are to Graham Capill.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Graham , sorry to hide behind a a cloak of anonymity, my my name is Peter Burns and if I am a person who is spraying defamatory content then surely I can expect the obvious consequences.Litigation is all about credibility. We are all big boys here who understand that Labour should pay back the money it stole from the people of kiwiland.
September 25th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
The citizerns have spoken and the pollies have all realised the wrath of the citizerns.Our employees having committed theft as a servant first tried to bluff and tough it out. This didnt work and now they are on the climb down trail. The Socialists being the party most opposed to doing the peoples bidding and the most arrogant and contemptous are taking the longest to retreat from their losing position. Even the current polls arent enough. Its awonder the Divine Heavenly beloved Leader hasnt blamed the EBs for the latest result Something like Well the EBs have influenced the poll or It was stacked with EBs.
But we shouldnt rejoice yet The Socialists still have the Tax Cut card to play and play it they will. They know that most of their supporters are too dumb to realise that tax cuts are just allowing tax payers to keep some of their earnings. Mind you with WFF their are bugger all Socialists who are not welfare beneficaries to some extent.
September 25th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
ACT hasnt said they will pay it back.
ACt is waiting till the final report comes out ( having negiotaed a reduction)
September 25th, 2006 at 5:58 pm
ACT also hasn’t claimed on national news that there is no way they will pay it back, they are also not calling for validating legislation and they have taken shots at the A-G.
Were you just looking for differences rostock or did you have a point?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:37 pm
DPF: any particular reason why Type-Key sign-on isn’t working, and one of my comments is being held over for approval?
September 25th, 2006 at 6:39 pm
THe problem with ACT is Rodney HIde has said:
Helen Clark is not corrupt
So I guess when Greens & Maori party abstrain from the confidence vote over corruption, ACT will be voting with … the government.
the fact remains any allegation that the pledge cards are electoral activities of Labour or that the Brethren activities where done with the authority of the National party will never been known.
No, once again these issues are all known. In particular, the Chief Electoral Officer – the key independent watchdog in this area – said Labour was guilty of a corrupt practice and National was not.
At that point, the Labour cabinet should have resigned. That they ignored the constitutional conventions of this country is what has got us all into this mess.
September 25th, 2006 at 6:41 pm
Dad4Justice: yes, if we agree on one thing, it’s that Labour’s position is untenable.
I’ve lost count of the number of times that this Labour-led Government has passed legislation under the pretext of “clarifying” the law or, worse, retrospectively “fixing” the law – the “Harry Deynhoven” amendment comes to mind.
Here, the A-G has turned his mind to the rulebook and is “clarifying” how it should be applied. It’s disingenious in the extreme (though, sadly, perhaps not unprecedented) to attack an independent officer of Parliament for doing his job. But Mr Brady is no shoehorn and I doubt he’s intimidated.
Labour’s position ultimately comes down to this: it’s most unfair of the A-G to “reinterpret” the rulebook after the 2005 election when no issue was taken with the same practices in 2002.
To which I say:
(1) the precise circumstances, as now known to the A-G, perhaps weren’t known to him back in 2002;
(2) the information in the public domain makes it abundantly clear that Labour refused to engage with the A-G before the election;
(3) that same information shows that Labour was on notice that various authorities had concerns about its proposed election spending; and
(4) the current court proceedings will quite possibly result in a declaration one way or the other (assuming they aren’t discontinued or otherwise settled, unlikely as that may be). This does put the A-G in a slightly difficult position, though, as his report will apparently be finalised in the meantime – just in time for the next lively parliamentary session.
The fact that Winston Peters was only yesterday attacking the A-G reinforces in my mind that the A-G should be left to finalise his report. Then we can have a sensible debate about whether the A-G’s interpretation of the rulebook, and its supporting reasoning, can be substantiated.
September 25th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Innocent3, your earlier comment about labour being able to pay the money back and then spend it on legit advertising doesn’t stack up. Parliamentary funding is on a use-it-or-lose-it basis. The timeframe has passed for when Labour could legitimately spend it, so they cannot spend it in another year.
As far as the taxpayer not being disadvantaged, that is subjective rubbish.
September 25th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
Gary
Yes you are right if the money had not been spent on the pledge card then it would have been spent on sometime else. You correctly state that the funds would have been used anyway. Thus it is impossible to conclude that the taxpayer has lost anything.
If you have a beef about whether the pledge card was an electoral activity then you (or anyone else) were free to file an electoral petition at the time of the last election that would have got indirectly to the characterisation of the spend for Electoral Act purposes. The pledge card was not in Labour’s previous two returns so even if their lastest return wasn’t available the prudent thing to do was to file. You would be an ignoramus not to assume that they would do the same this time. Filing electoral petitions in advance of the filing of a Party or candidate returns of donations and expenses is not usual. Indeed this is probably would have been what Peters had to do in the Tauranga Electoral Petition.
Returning to Labour reimbursing wrongly or mistakenly used members support allocation, if you assert that any reimbursement for wrongful or mistaken breach of the rules results in a complete loss of the funds, then this would be inconsistent with all other previous practice. In the past when expenses have been paid by a member then that money is available for expenditure on those things that comply with the rules.
If you are suggesting that Labour forfeit the worth of the pledge cards entirely then the rules will be hard to enforce. Even more so if the judge in Darnton v Clark finds that it has supervisory jurisdiction, then any decision by the Speaker instructing Parliamentary Service to forfeit the refunded sum could find its way into Court on a judicial review. If indeed the Speaker is exercising a statutory power in this regard then she will probably be required to exercise in a similar manner as it has been done before. If Darnton v Clark is successful it may permit Labour to re-spend any reimbursed funds. If it is unsuccessful then it would be up to a direction from the Speaker. I guess in this case she would act consistently with previous practice – although who knows.
September 26th, 2006 at 4:36 am
. If Darnton v Clark is successful it may permit Labour to re-spend any reimbursed funds.
If D vs C is sussessful then H1 and H2 will have to resign.
At which point no amount of money will do anything.