Unbelievable
It is hard to believe – Clark had the nerve to attack the source of funding for Darnton v Clark lawsuit, and today it is revealed that the taxpayer is funding her defence. So they are accussed of privately benefiting from public money, and they defended that by using more public money.
This reflects the Labour world view that private money is bad, and public money is good.
More importantly today we had Pete Hodgson come out and rule out any possibility Labour will pay back the illegal expenditure. His reason is because Labour “did not believe it had done anything wrong”.
This clearly shows what many of us have been saying. Labour believes that as Government, it is above the law. It puts its belief about right or wrong over the findings of the electoral, legal and audit agencies.
This is why people call them corrupt. They put themselves above the law.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
The first question is: How much more have they taken?
The second question is: What does the Auditor General have to say about it?
September 12th, 2006 at 1:31 pm
My god. With such blatant corrution and hypocrisy, it almost seems like Labour have forfeited their right to govern the country.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Your corrupt mate Hide has put himself above the law by refusing to pay back immediately the reduced amount that he now admits he spent illegally.
Havent noticed you saying this , but instead you praise Hide for his ‘process’.
Hide must be corrupt since he let Donna get away with her stealing for so long as well . Small world , even smaller party !
September 12th, 2006 at 1:34 pm
Another question:
If they lose (which in all honestly, is likey), will they pay back the money used to mount the defense?
September 12th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
McPhee, you’re an idiot. Hide is waiting to read the final report before acting, and nobody in Act knew about Donna’s corruption until it was publicly revealed (after which she was very promptly booted).
By contrast, Labour have already totally ruled out paying back the funds, and harbours totally corrupt hangers-on (viz TPF) for as long as possible.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
“His reason is because Labour “did not believe it had done anything wrong”.”
So it’s the old innocent on the grounds of insanity defense trick then.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:51 pm
Well, its good to see Hodgson keeping this issue in the headlines. Well done.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Doug National has paid it back to show they are no longer corrupt. Is there any doubt that spending taxpayers money is corruption, after all Rodders has negotiated the figure down , so he maintains his corruption by waiting , just like Labour . But it sounds like he’s a special case.
Donna got the special funding by getting Tau henare to bypass the cabinet process. After all they needed her vote desperately to avoid an early election. ACT long knew Donna was fiddling the accounts. thats why Rodders also thought he would ‘wait and see’
September 12th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
McPhee
You falsely accused Don Brash about lying about the EB on another thread on this board.
Provide some evidence. How about a quote? My recollection is that every word he said at the time was pedantic, even nit-picking but scrupulously true.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
McPhee – Rodney has his own blog. Perhaps you’d like to go over their and make your allegations. Might help to post your name & address too, so that Rodney can contact you personally.
September 12th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
McPhee:
Clearly you cannot see the difference between Rodney Hide saying: “I do not believe I have done anything wrong. If the Auditor-General says I have done something wrong, I will accept his independent judgement, and repay what he says my Party owes,” and:
“I do not believe I have done anything wrong. If the Auditor-General says I have done something wrong, I will reject his independent judgement, not repay what my Party owes, and legislate to make what I did illegal,” from the Labour Party.
Note also the matter of scale. There is a vast difference between ACT misspending by $16,000, and Labour, after advice from the Auditor-General that it could not use parliamentary services funding for electioneering purposes, going ahead with it anyway and applying $800k+ of public funds to its campaign, thus outspending everybody else by the same amount. That involves a deliberate decision to defy the A-G.
Note further that Cullen is now placing the blame on Treasury for the validating legislation: “Since we refuse to pay it back, Treasury will require it to be legal, so we will have to legislate to make it legal.”
But if you, unlike the ordinary voter, can’t tell the difference, why the hell are you even bothering participating in the debate? As far as neutral parties are concerned, who can tell the difference between what Labour has done and what is legal and proper, you are just making Labour look even more ridiculous by defending them.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
If Labour is not is not corrupt then the word corruption has no meaning. If there is no hypocrisy in the Labours actions than the word hypocrisy has no meaning.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
IP why keep saying Rodney has said ‘will repay’ when he has refused ?.
Not a word on Rodneys blog about corruption ( his). Good to see hes doing swim training, i didnt think he could sink any further.
But hes logged on now, so hes not writing that cheque yet.
His secret plan must be to let Labour silently cook in their own juices while he keeps extra fit for the election in 2 years time.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:40 pm
Seeing as we are quoting Rodney how about:
“The Auditor-General on advice from the Solicitor-General has now generated a new rule. The new rule has no particular legislative or judge-made basis. It’s just what these two gentlemen think it should be.”
and
“It’s certainly a radical departure from what has been the policy till now—and the policy which National developed and subscribed to.”
As for the amounts in question that is purely a function of the size of party. The bigger the party the more money you get to spend.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
McPhee:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2006/09/congratulations_act.html
Oh, and the election is much sooner than two years away.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:43 pm
then Rodney went on to say:
“That’s why National owe the taxpayers millions, not 10k, and why most of what they do (and I do) is “unlawfully” funded. I don’t see National offering to pay the millions back—or to stop from spending the money the now spend.”
Get it?
September 12th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Actually, Rodney was on NewstalkZB yesterday explaining how he would be paying back the money that the AG says he overspent.
Further, he said that he had been very careful about spending prior to the election, and was surprised when the draft report came out and said he had spent his PS budget on incorrectly by $60,000. He had a meeting with the AG, and they agreed that a petition that he had run in may/june last year was in fact within the rules, hence his liability is reduced to $16,000. Which he will pay.
September 12th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
No, I don’t get it, Noddy, because I tend to rely on the legal interpretations of independent third-parties, such as the Auditor-General, the Solicitor-General, the Chief Electoral Officer, and the Electoral Commission.
The Auditor-General has said National mis-spent $10,000. National took that on board, and paid it back. The A-G said Labour mis-spent by $800k+. They refuse to pay it back, and want to make it legal.
So, too, does Rodney Hide want to pay back what he should not have. He has said it would make a mockery of Parliament for him to defy the A-G’s recommendations.
September 12th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Why has Clark so much to say about the Auditor General’s report when she so often refused to comment on the Ingram report until it was officially released?
September 12th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
IP you really should read what you link to:
“Asked if Act would pay back the $16,000, Mr Hide said he was waiting to see what the report said.”
… waiting to see… doesnt look like ..paying it back… unless you blind.
But Spam who is deaf heard different on ZB. But Rodney doesnt say anything on his blog other than how his swim training is going. ( not going back to dancing obviously)
Two smackdowns in one day… Im getting to enjoy this.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:04 pm
McPhee – ACT did not *allow* Donna to keep stealing, if you research those events again you will see they ejected her from the party and tried to get her booted from Parliament as soon as possible.
The problem was she refused to go and fought a lengthy court battle to stop herself getting ejected from the party and her seat.
ACT got her out as soon as they could legally do so.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Why did she attack Darnton for having private donors for his lawsuit but it is quite permissible for her to be dipping into public money to protect her position. I think an amendment to the statement of cliam should be made to get a ruling from the High Court whether public money could be used in this way. This woman thinks that taxpayers money is simply play money for the Labour Party to use for what it likes. And somehow when people use private money that is somehow evidence of some deep dark conspiracy. I think she is certifiable under the Mentally Impared Persons Act.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
McPhee I heard the same interview as Spam and Rodney said what Spam wrote. Move on as your Beloved Leader keeps telling us
September 12th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Why pass VALIDATING legislation if the spending is NOT illegal. If they think their spending was lawful then do NOTHING. But they seem to think they have to pass the legislation. WHY – becuase it is illegal and they will not pay it back.
September 12th, 2006 at 4:59 pm
McPhee – so because Rodney didn’t blog on it, then obviously I am deaf and/or making it up.
Dork.
Have a listen for yourself:
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/audio2/11173526.wma
September 12th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
I heard Hodgson say that on National Radio, and Catherine Ryan (to her credit) followed it with the obvious follow up: So, the Government has retrospective legislation ready to go, and is confident it will pass? He fudged it like an Oompa Loompa on time and a half.
I say bring it on, especially if they’re going to try to minimise the political damage by ramming retrospective legislation under urgency – and without the embarrasment of select committee scrutiny and public submissions (which I suspect would be overwhelmingly opposed).
September 12th, 2006 at 5:51 pm
Thanks Spam you are a great help. Listening closely for Rodneys 3 little words. Says hes not criticising Labour ??… not bagging the auditor general..
DOES NOT SAY ‘PAY IT BACK’
I was prepared to think that Hide was saying something different in the afternoon to what he was saying in the morning but no , hes waiting for the final report – having got his amount reduced allready, and doesnt say anything about ‘paying back’.
Sure the host indros it as ‘considering paying back’. but those words dont pass Hides lips.
Larry: so you will have to cough $16000 ?
Rodney : Im still working with the auditor general….
To be honest my estimation of Hide has gone up, listening to this as hes consistent and fair.
So I win this one!! Thanks alot ( I presume its a live to air snip and Hides actual words arent taken out)
So whos not only deaf but imagining hearing voices that arent there !!
September 12th, 2006 at 8:03 pm
McPhee –
No, he didn’t specifically say that he was going to pay it back, but that was the impression that he gave. But the only thing you’ve “won” is a pedantry contest.
From Newstalk ZB
http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/newsdetail1.asp?storyID=103498
“The political party ACT has announced it is likely to repay money overspent at the last election.
ACT is now liable for almost $17,000 after the Auditor General accepted $46,000 spent on a petition last year was acceptable.
Leader Rodney Hide indicates ACT will pay that back and believes other parties will have to accept the Auditor General’s ruling.”
Seems that newstalkZB got the clear impression that he was going to pay it back.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
I accept that ZB has run the story that way . But its all untrue. Hide doesnt say during the interview he will pay it back nor in the Herald report in the morning.
So the journalist puts their own words instead of Hides , wouldnt be the first time a story is basically ‘made up’. I actually think better of Hide anyway. Since the $16000 makes it easy to say I will pay it back but he hasnt , hes consistent and not just looking for the cheap headline like national does. There is hope after all and hide does seem different after dancing with the stars.
back to work tomorrow so this will be the last ‘big’ day for me. Too much work to be done
September 12th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
Spam:
Seriously, give it up. McPhee is living in some softcore fantasy world, and facts just angry up his blood.
September 12th, 2006 at 8:31 pm
The auditor general should resign.
The government has no faith in his decisions.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
McPhee, I’ll miss you. Really.
September 12th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Can we have that weird woman who swallowed das capital and can’t spell instead of McPhee. What was her name?
September 12th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
I’m going with Pauline