The spin unravels
A copy of the actual invoices for the pledge card, released under the lawsuit Darnton v Clark, seriously undermines Labour’s spin, as reported in the NZ Herald.
The invoices were stamped “approved for payment” and signed by Heather Simpson. The Parliamentary Service has specifically said the MPs authorise the expenditure, not them.
But the real potential smoking gun is the strong hint that The Parliamentary Service has been reluctant to pay for them, and only did so under direct order from the PM’s Chief of Staff.
You see they were not paid until 17 November – three months after they were produced. And they were only paid for after a letter from the PM’s Chief of Staff saying:
The publications were created and issued in compliance with established procedures.
“To my knowledge, they comply with all applicable laws and procedures for such publications. That is an entirely sufficient certification for your requirements.
Kindly ensure that the payments are made without further delay.
If Labour wishes to persist with its spin that they acted within the rules and Parliamentary Service approved the pledge cards, they need to reveal all correspondence between them, and PS on the issue.
I have *never* known the need for such a letter to accompany invoices to be paid. The only possible situation where it would be needed is where the PS has expressed serious misgivings over the expenditure. And again I can think of no reasons for a three month delay in payment, except PS resisting. Note the reference to “further” dleay clearing indicating PS had been delaying.
On the face of it, this evidence fatally undermines Labour’s claims, and shows the defence to be a tissue of lies.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:00 am
Busted !
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:21 am
any one know if either side are planning to call H2 as a witness, would be nice to have concrete comments on record, just so everyone is sure of the situation.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:27 am
Notice Simpson calls them “the publications”. I bet neither the invoices nor the letter call it a “pledge card” because then it probably would not have been paid. They actual invoices need to be released publicly. On the face of it, it seems like Simpson has committed fraud.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:49 am
RightKiwi – interesting that you focused on exactly the same word I did. Mainly because it *again* refutes the Labour assertion that PS signs off on the spending.
Because you cannot truly sign off the spending if it wasn’t accuratly described what it was. Unless Labour want to go down the path of admitting defrauding PS as to what the spending was?
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:17 am
All this speculation around the pledge card and is kina getting boring no? I’m waiting for the AG report before reading anything else about it. Enjoy your echo chamber fellas.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:38 am
“All this speculation around the pledge card and is kina getting boring no?”
My father, who is suffering real and intense pain, was just thrown of a surgery waiting list because of a lack of money. Labour stole 800,000 dollars of taxpayers money that could have provided my father and thousands of others with the operations they desperately need. So no, to anyone who is not a brainlesss Labourite sycophant, the issue is NOT boring, its a matter of criminal behaviour by a regime that was more interested power then in caring for suffering people.
Enjoy your heartless criminal government. Oh, on behalf of my dad, rot in hell.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
If PJ finds this issue boring, mayhe he would like to discuss the issue of hospital waiting lists and why Shawn’s father, who apparently is in desperate need of surgery, isn’t going to be operated on under this government.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:01 pm
If PJ finds this issue boring, mayhe he would like to discuss the issue of hospital waiting lists and why Shawn’s father, who apparently is in desperate need of surgery, isn’t going to be operated on under this government.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:15 pm
David, I have noticed a lot of your posts recently have been quoted indirectly on the news. Take for example the fact that Helen has used the word ‘corrupt’ several times whilst in opposition. That point was raised by Mark Sainsbury last night on Close Up.
I hope you ensure that the media raises the issues you raise today not only on the news tonight but also in the Sunday newspapers and TV bulletins!
Well done and keep it up!
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:20 pm
KB – I was at a function so didn’t see Close Up but good to hear it was used. I understand Prime TV used it also and a couple of radio stations.
I can’t ensure the media do anything but if material I produce here is thought to be relevant, I am pleased it gets used.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:21 pm
Sorry about your father Shawn but you won’t get much sympathy from the likes of PJ. Like all socailists they “pretend”. All they really care about is the party and a failed ideology.$800,000 is nothing when you can help yourself to millions, the reason they won’t pay the money back is that might have to come out of there own pockets. To do that would be breaking the 1st law of socialism, always spend someone elses money. Will be very interesting to see how much the party faithful are willing to give to the save the party-fuck all I would suggest.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Ross said
“maybe he would like to discuss the issue of hospital waiting lists”
Oh it’s o.k.
You will all be pleased to know foreigners with known chronic diseases will be allowed, nay encouraged to come into the country and take your place as well.
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:30 pm
There is an excellent photo on the 2nd page of the Herald on Tuesday 19th Septmeber, whoever took it should be awarded photograher of the year, it shows Don & Partner enjoying the show, and the troll sulking in the background, bloody awesome, I think the media has finally stopped taking the medication dished out from Wellington, and woken up to the trauma NZ’ers face getting rid of the these corrupt bastards!
September 22nd, 2006 at 12:31 pm
There is an excellent photo on the 2nd page of the Herald on Tuesday 19th Septmeber, whoever took it should be awarded photographer of the year, it shows Don & Partner enjoying the show, and the troll sulking in the background, bloody awesome, I think the media has finally stopped taking the medication dished out from Wellington, and woken up to the trauma NZ’ers face getting rid of the these corrupt bastards!
September 22nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
The Statement of Defence and Counterclaims are available on the Darton v Clark blog – interesting reading.
Yes I never believed that Labour got “pre approval” from Parliamentary Service it simply isn’t Labour’s style. Luckily for them it would have been legally unhelpful in the extreme too.
I know that Parliamentary Service ask for an authorisation (usually a signature)on invoices submitted for payment but this statement seems way more a comprehensive authorisation than is usual. They were of course aware of the issues surrounding the pledge card and its treatment under the Electoral Act 1993 at the time.
That fact that they had concerns, asked for a comprehensive authorisation from Simpson on behalf of the Labour Leader and Caucus and actually paid the bill despite these concerns supports the Labour Party and Attorney General’s statement of defence in Darton v Clark that what was being done was not an exercise of a statutory power but rather a Parliamentary one and therefore it isn’t reviewable.
Parliamentary Service has a shadow Parliamentary Corporation as established by the Parliamentary Service Act 2000 for legal relations with the world. However when one attempts to dig behind that one gets into Speakers directions, Members Handbooks etc…… all looking way too Parliamentary for a Judicial Review. This isn’t a problem for the Auditor General as of course he is a Parliamentary officer and therefore part of the legislative branch of government. But it might be a problem for the Courts who are wary about getting involved in internal parliamentary matters.
Nor actually is there a particular problem with the exercise of a statutory power and claims of an assertion of a species of parliamentary privilege from judicial review in the Courts as new privileges must be statutorily established anyway.
A fascinating little case.
September 22nd, 2006 at 2:13 pm
And just considering the judicial review/declaration issue I am struggling to think of anything more intimately Parliamentary than the rules dealing with parliamentary communications. If the Courts hold that these rules have enough of a statutory element and that this is free from any privilege and therefore there is justiciability then anytime any MP does something that other MP’s think might be against those rules, and irrespective of any other parliamentary processes (including consideration by the Speaker) that considers the issue (or indeed consideration by the Auditor General) there will be an incentive to get the Courts to look at the matter – and the the cost of taking the case is covered by the Parliamentary allocation!
September 22nd, 2006 at 4:21 pm
This funding in the House of Commons (“Short Money”) and House of Lords (“Cranborne Money”) is affected by a resolution of each House and provided for through a House of Commons Members Estimate.
They also have an Act dealing with the Administration of the Parliament which establishes a Commission much like here. However there it covers Parliamentary staff and services and support of Select Committees but not (as I can work it out) the Short or Cranborne Money. It is funded from a House of Commons Administration Estimate. The other difference with here I think is that the Clerk of the House of Representatives provides the staff for Select Committees in New Zealand.
The major point is however that oversight (aside from auditing) for Short and Cranborne Money is provided by Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee on Standards and Privileges (same as our Privilages Committee). In the UK it is clearly considered to be a matter of Parliamentary Privilege.
Whether the Short Money is covered by Parliamentary privilege has been considered in the in High Court of Justice of Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein refused to take the Parliamentary Oath and as a consequence were denied all parliamentary allowances including Short Money by a Speakers Ruling. Regarding the allowances Ker J ruled that this was a matter for the Speakers authority as a delegate of the House and on behalf of the House. He observed: “control of its own internal arrangements has long been recognised as falling uniquely within Parliament’s domain and superintendence from the Courts intervention is excluded.” He further went on to observe obiter that even thought it wasn’t pleaded and therefore unnecessary, had it been necessary he would have held that the Speakers actions relating to allowances was a proceeding under Article 9 of the Bill of Right and therefore non reviewable in the Courts.
Mmmm not looking good for Mr Darton.
September 22nd, 2006 at 8:26 pm
Innocent, I have long ago decided that this is exactly the lines Labour want this case to go. The court will rule that this is a matter of privilege and is thus not open to judicial review. Since saint Margaret has already ruled that this is NOT a matter of privilege, the case will sit exactly where labour wants it, in limbo forever. A nice solution from their point of view, and no doubt the leftoids will crow forever about just how clever they have been.
Of course there is the option that the court will in fact believe the speaker (a bit of a stretch I know) and decide that since the speaker has decided it isn’t a privilege matter, that it really is within the courts power to rule. Don’t hold your breath though.
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:01 pm
Time to squeal like a piggy…
September 22nd, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Ed
These communications may not involve a breach of privilage but the Parliamentary rules involving members communications may privilaged from review/declaration in the Courts. Thus the remedy for a breach of the rules is to be found in the rules or whatever machanisms Parliament has established.
I wonder whether the Auditor General concluding that communications done pursuant to theses internal parliamentary processes (even if wrongly) are “illegal” which appears to connote a breach of some statute might also be potentially a breach of privilage, especially if the judge in Darnton v Clark concludes that there is no statutory power being exercised in member authorised expenditures on communications even if wrongly done under those rules. The only occasion one could conclude a breach of statute law and thus illegality would be via a conviction and/or an Electoral Petition in the High Court. However even so the same privilage issue would arise but the Court would have an out with the “capacity of a Member of Parliament” exception. That is why I feel the Chief Electoral Officer and and the Auditor General might be far too narrow in what they consider to be within the capacity of Members of Parliament. At the Rate the Prime Minister is climing into the Auditor General, I hope he has got access to some good legal advice.
Interesting consititutional issues.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:16 pm
What a nerve comparing the PS money – which comes out of a specific allocation to health budger funding. There is no connection.
The relevant detail for those who do care – is that there were tens of millions more included in the Health Budget for contingencies by Labour than National.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:29 pm
And while we are all bickering over an inane few thousands of dollars spent promoting govt policy…the Aussies have just stolen Feltex.
September 22nd, 2006 at 11:53 pm
Cretean:
You might want to tell the people who aren’t sure they’re going to see the New Year in with their jobs that $800,000 is an ‘inane few thousands of dollars’.
And while you’re strill frothing, perhaps it’s time to ask the good Kiwi blokes on the Feltex board how the fuck they got so deep in the hole with the ANZ in the first place. If I was a Feltex shareholder or worker, I’d be putting some arses to the fire much closer to home than ANZ HQ in Sydney.