Well done The Greens
The Greens have today said they will will not vote for any law that legalises any election spending deemed to be unlawful, and further their MPs and party would pay back any funding the Auditor-General says should not have been spent on election material.
Bravo. Like ACT, are now doing the right thing.
Jeanette Fitzsimons still beleives the AG has been inconsistent in his interpretation of the spending rules, but correctly says it was not right for MPs to use their lawmaking powers to overturn his findings.
This now leaves only Labour, NZ First and United Future refusing to pay it back, or refusing to state what they will do.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
No tag for this post.
September 20th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Peter Dunne has run on a platform of principles. So where are they? Or do they only come out in fair weather?
September 20th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
But DPF – it is irrelevant what other parties do. Labour has already said that they didn’t think they were doing anything wrong so even if they happen to be found wrong (and that would be a smear of the worst kind by the Auditor General) they won’t have to pay it back.
I am really looking forward to giving that defence a run…
September 20th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
he’s above principles, can’t you tell?
September 20th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
The three parties of Government no less… Is this a measure of how power corrupts integrity perhaps…
September 20th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
Like a broken reocrd I know, but why didn’t National treat the issue the same way?
Might have saved themselves $10K!
September 20th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
I look forward to Philipjohn’s take on this.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:42 pm
The consensus amongst parties, is that the AG has not gone about this correctly.
Why is this?
IMO there was a gathering of the AG and National last year determining that Leaders Fund money would not be used by them in the 2005 campaign – this because they had Brash’s sign onto leadership campaign war chest and EB to resort to. No other parties were part of this understanding.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:48 pm
SPC,
You’re either lying, or simply wrong.
The Prime Minister refused to meet with the AG to clarify the issue. Instead she sent Trevor Mallard and Heather Simpson. They received the same instructions as Don Brash did.
The Nats broadly complied with the rules. Labour didn’t.
It is utterly disgusting that you are perpetrating Labour’s spin that the Auditor-General is either incompetent or biased.
Just pay it back, assholes.
September 20th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
SPC:
If the ‘consensus amongst parties’ is that the Auditor-General is incompetent or (if I read your inference correctly) colluding with National, then I should remind I’d like to remind you of one very simple fact.
As it says on the Controller & Auditor-General’s own website (http://www.oag.govt.nz/about-us/all-about/all-about.htm)
QUOTE
The Auditor-General is an officer of Parliament. In that capacity, the Auditor-General is independent of executive government2 and answerable to Parliament.
The person holding the office of Auditor-General is recommended for the position by the House of Representatives and is appointed by the Governor-General.
The person appointed can hold the office for a once-only term of no more than seven years. The current holder of the office is Kevin Brady.
END QUOTE
If Parliament has lost confidence in Kevin Brady, why don’t they do something about it? Because it’s a little more politically expedient to have in place someone whose integrity you can attack with no fear of a comeback? Typical.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:05 pm
IP If you think the AG incompetent or biased, because small parties were not invited to the meeting, is your affair.
If you think, the AG incompetent or biased, because he is not infallible or has recanted from initial opinions, is your affair.
The fact remains Labour and National had different expectations in 2005 over how the rules would be applied. Most parties seemed to share Labour’s position.
This is why the Greens said, while they might not support resort to legal remedy (they did not want to do so when a beneficiary of such a move), they were of a different expectation about the 2005 rules.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
The AG has now changed his mind on the Greens’ spending. Therefore, either:
a) an initial draft is demonstrably NOT a final report. Therefore allegations of “corruption”, “theft” etc., all based on a decision not yet reached, have been false.
or
b) the AG is not competent.
Which?
September 20th, 2006 at 4:08 pm
I do loath the Greens policy on just about everything, but I do admire their principles and integrity. Next time i see sue kedgley as she jumps on the bus I will tell her that i am very pleased with their stand on this issue.
now – Peter Dunne needs to do the right thing. We can assume that Winston will not as he is culpable as Labour and as their little yapping poodle will do as his girlfriend helen instructs.
or is peter dunne a poodle as well? what do the lickspittle labour readers of this blog think?
September 20th, 2006 at 4:13 pm
Well done the Greens Credit where credits due.And it wont hurt their polling either.It shows a principle of integrity ethics and morality.The ball is now in the Socialists and their hangers on court.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:16 pm
Craig – the consensus seems to be that the AG and National were singing a different tune to others while reading the same regulations as the others.
What exactly about the 2003 reveiw led to any difference to the AG line (from 2002 to 2005), has yet to be clarified. The media has had nothing to explain about it. As Brady was involved in a junior role in 2002 maybe he could be expected to explain to people with the final report – if not in it, by the media once it’s completed.
As to the position of the AG – it’s for the official to complete his report and explain it. That’s the accountability. Without good explanation for how the confusion occured, the process or person needs to be accountable.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Is it just me or is it co-incidence that this sudden finding of principle comes the same day as it is reported that the AG has found the bulk of the Green’s use of Parliamentary Services funding to be within the rules. I personally wouldn’t be clapping anyone on the back as the Greens have now put a price on their principles – $20,000.
the cash for policies auction now has a reserve.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
SPC:
That’s rather disingenuous, because we both know various politicians and commentors have gone a damn sight further than that in their attacks on Kevin Brady.
Still, nice to see you’ve backed off implying that there’s any kind of collusion between the Auditor-General and National, or that he’s biasing his report to favour National.
I’d make this comment thought: Kevin Brady is not accountable for the legislation passed by Parliament, and he certainly shouldn’t be held ‘accountable’ (whatever that means) by politicians who are embarrased and politically damaged when those rules come back to bite them in the arse.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
I still have yet to see a single coherent reason WHY Brady signed off the same spending in 2002 and not in 2005. What exactly about the so-called “new rules” is he relying on to support his changed position?
I’ve read them carefully, and I conclude that they are very much open to interpretation. One can read them as prohibiting virtually everything, through to the traditional one that allows almost everything except direct soliciting of votes, funds or membership. The latter interpretation is the one Brady signed off on in 2002. So on what basis has he reached a different conclusion in 2005?
It is not a rort or corrupt to challenge an official who makes an arbitary ruling against you. Thousands of taxpayers challenge IRD rulings every year, and many win their cases.
September 20th, 2006 at 4:43 pm
Craig, IMO it’s National which was willing to offer the AG in 2005 a Leaders Fund/PS money free campaign – this may have not what others expected.
This does not require any particular collusion, to have an impact on the AG’s initial thinking.
The AG will have to justify the 2005 line as distinct from the 2002 line on the basis of the 2003 changes. Can he site the changes concerned and how parties were aware of this impact – given smaller parties were not even at the meeting and one of the 2 at the meeting acted as it did?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:04 pm
You assume the AG approved the 2002 pledge card. It is very possible he never saw them.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
He allowed the LF spending of Bill English?
Are you are not standing by earlier claims the 2003 changes explain the difference?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:12 pm
Cretean
The AG did not “sign-off” as you put it on the 2002 spend. In fact it is entirely plausible and reasonable to suppose that the transactions in question were not reviewed by the AG’s office at that time.
Over time auditors routinely vary the kind of transactions they review and, believe me, they review very few as a persentage of the total. One year they may review all transactions above a certain value, another time they might look at all transactions with certain parties. One thing is for sure they almost never do the old “tick and holler” review of the books.
So to say that it was “approved” by the AG in 2002 and 1999 is plainly and patently incorrect. No-one in their wildest dreams assumed that Labour would misuse public funds in this way until this was exposed so it is all smoke and mirrors until the final report comes out.
It was wrong in 1999
It was wrong in 2002
It was wrong in 2005
To say it wasn’t challenged in those years does not make anny of it right.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Don’t underestimate the influence that a SEDITION charge will have over the A-G. He has made adjustments to ACT and now the Greens, it’s just the process he needs to go through before he gives Labour a clean bill of health. We would after all squeal like Helen after her husband was accused of being gay if he just let Labour off.
There is no precedent to suspect anything will eventuate from the A-G report irrespective of how daming it is to Labour.
September 20th, 2006 at 5:39 pm
“The fact remains Labour and National had different expectations in 2005 over how the rules would be applied. Most parties seemed to share Labour’s position.”
Hmmmm, all seems a bit convenient doesn’t it? I think that SPC made a pertinent observation noting that National’s coffers were flush for 2005 so they decided not to take leader’s fund money. National’s election donations ($1.8 million) were twice that of Labour’s ($.9 million) in 2005, while the $ contribution of the exclusive brethren to national’s campaign dwarfed the union movement’s support of labour’s campaign.
Brash chaired several committees in the 1980s that discussed the pros and cons of bringing in GST (see the recently released book “New Rights New Zealand”), so it seems funny that they could have knowingly made that GST error.
My hypothesis: The Nats knew they could afford to avoid PS funding, they became aware that using PS funding close to election time was open to a legal challenge and purposefully made the tiny $10,000 GST error so they could pay it back and make a big deal out of Labour’s PS spending.
Deviously clever strategising if this is true, or maybe just a happy coincidence?
September 20th, 2006 at 5:40 pm
A lot of pressure will go on Peter Dunne now. Let us see if he is up to it. For instance Labour might push the nuclear button and make it an issue of confidence. But Dunny should show spine and call their bluff. It is going to be a hard call for him but I assume he is already thinking through what he is going to do. So far he has said very little other than a brief criticism of the AG but nothing like the toxic bile that is coming from the Labour Party.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:08 pm
In fact it is entirely plausible and reasonable to suppose that the transactions in question were not reviewed by the AG’s office at that time.
So we are both making assumptions. Anyone know the actual facts? Did the AG actually sign off on Labour’s 2002 election expenses or not?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
So David W says that the LF spending was wrong in 1999 and 2002 (and the AG “must have overlooked” it earlier) – now why then have others felt the need to cite the changes in 2003 to explain the different approach taken (at least initially in the draft) by the AG in 2005?
Who decides what is right and wrong about it, then and now, anyhow and do they not have to justify themselves?
If they were all doing it before and most did it again in 2005, does this not indicate something?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
SPC
“If they were all doing it before and most did it again in 2005, does this not indicate something?”
YES is surely does, most thought they would never need to face the consequences.
WHAAAARP – Thanks for playing.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:51 pm
Had the matter ever been determined so before 2005? And in 2005/2006, is it an initial opinion, later reviewed under challenge?
September 20th, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Forget 2002. The AG set up a series of meetings with Party leaders to discuss election spending for 2005. Helen Clark refused to see him now she pleads ignorance. She should be facing criminal charges and may well do so in the next parliament.
September 20th, 2006 at 6:55 pm
SPC
“Who decides what is right and wrong about it, then and now, anyhow and do they not have to justify themselves?”
Who decides? generally the politicians, remember they enact laws. I do believe the Electoral Act and it’s amendments and associated conventions were set down my Parliament. How do they justify themselves? Good question, can’t see any justification for the current lot being where they are at the moment.
September 20th, 2006 at 7:03 pm
This probably isn’t the place for it, but now that we have ‘parliament’ as a second level domain, shouldn’t the website of the Office of the Auditor-General be moved from oag.govt.nz to oag.parliament.nz?
September 20th, 2006 at 7:38 pm
Well Tim and burt, it seems you are reliant on the initial opinion of the AG being sustained in the final report. Yet it would seem that the confusion amongst most parties over the 2005 standard, is indicative that the process failed in some way. A review of all this, will have to explain why this was.
September 20th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
If the greens believed there was no wrong doing and everything was above board why have they jumped ship. Prehaps they see the ship is ready to capsize and they are saving themselves.
The greens will gain more mana and a hunk of far left voters by following their own path.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
SPC
The process did fail, or was not applied, in 1999 & 2002. So far it’s holding up for 2005 but I’m not holding my breath.
September 20th, 2006 at 9:58 pm
well, I can put you in the category of those who don’t argue that the 2003 changes had much impact on any of this.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
SPC,
That is about as relevant to all of this as who DB or HC put it about with. Any changes prior to an election (and election – ever) simply create a new set of compliance considerations. We are talking about apparently intelligent well informed people with substantial resources at their disposal. What part of compliance is voluntary simply because you choose to be ill informed or do not take advice or heed warnings.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Kiwi Donkey
Dunnes principles – same as snake oil salesman.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
It seems the Green Party were right to challenge an initial opinion/advice/warning re the Green Times. So if they had simply accepted whatever someone else said, thought, decided they would have been disadvantaged.
September 20th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
Start up a business SPC, file misleading Income tax returns and when you finally get crushed by the IRD for non compliance claim that all the previous years of having your returns accepted mean it’s not fair to be punished now and you WILL NOT PAY. Insist the law is changed, see how far you get.
September 20th, 2006 at 11:03 pm
Perhaps someone who has worked in the AG office might care to spell out how the audit process operates. It is apparently based on two way communication.
September 21st, 2006 at 10:36 pm
I’ve got a serious question about the Greens on this: Have they ruled out simply abstaining, as they already do on matters of confidence and supply they won’t actively support, as opposed to actively voting against. If the A-G’s report doesn’t come down to the Prime Minister’s satisfaction, would there be any constitutional bar to her making the passage of ‘validating’ legislation a matter of confidence and basically daring the Greens and Maori Party to bring down the government?
September 21st, 2006 at 10:41 pm
“would there be any constitutional bar to her making the passage of ‘validating’ legislation a matter of confidence and basically daring the Greens and Maori Party to bring down the government?”
Can’t see one. It might bring down the government of course…
September 22nd, 2006 at 7:37 am
Graeme:
Ah, I didn’t think so. I asked because I may have missed something, but in the interviews I’ve heard with Jeanette she came across as being very careful to leave her party the wiggle room of abstaining rather than actively voting against ‘validating’ legislation.
SPC:
Would like your view on whether your definition of ‘two-way communication’ includes the story on page A1 of today’s Herald, headlined That’s not true, says official to Clark’?
MONEY QUOTE:
Auditor-General Kevin Brady has contradicted the Prime Minister’s claim that he backs Labour’s plan to pass a backdated law validating unlawful spending in last year’s election campaign.
In a rare move, Mr Brady yesterday denied Helen Clark’s suggestion that he had privately told an unnamed party leader that this was the course to take.
“I would never say that,” Mr Brady said when contacted by the Herald.
“That’s not my decision to make, or even get involved in.”
He acknowledged retrospective legislation was an option, but said he had no view on what should happen.
“I don’t even have that view, let alone would say it.”
Helen Clark’s office last night stood by her claim, and said Mr Brady’s denial was “completely contrary” to what she had been told by a party leader, whom she refused to name [emphasis mine].
END QUOTE
Full story at http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/story.cfm?c_id=1&ObjectID=10402462