For that alone he deserves credit.

In essence he handed a mess back to Parliament to sort out.

I note today from Parliament that National has been attempted to trade its support for the rolling over of the current parliamentary rules for Labour reducing the 1 January restricted period provisions of the Electoral Finance Bill.

You are trying to rewrite history. If there was credence in what you said, the AG report would not have been produced as it was, especially with the massive menace and public derision heaped on the AG by our PM and other dishonest parties.

Oh dear oh dear – a bit pedestrian.

So the 1999 – 2000 and the 2002 – 2003 Parliamentary Service Accounts where not audited by the office of the Auditor General? Perhaps no one noticed the National (2002) and Labour (1999 and 2002) pledge cards in those years. Strange given the Auditor General’s longstanding oft repeated concern over pledge cards.

I have dealt with the Auditor General’s warnings – primarily given in the context of concerns over Government (Executive Branch) advertising campaigns. Yes he also is on record over his concern regarding the lack of rules regarding MP expenditure. His focus on pamphleteering was driven by evidentiary issues over other forms of electioneering. It was not a concession that these were not electioneering per se.

His approach is constitutionally flawed. And from an expenditure control point of view dubious.

Alas your assertion that “electioneering” is defined in EA93 is also factually wrong. Your assertion about what it includes is also wrong.

You are correct that most forms of polling are excluded from the definition of election activities – depends on the script actually. Travel and staffing are more problematic but can be covered under the definition of electoral activities – depends on the circumstances.

It’s simply not true that the pledge cards in 1999 and 2002 “passed audit”. That expenditure was NEVER audited. The A-G specifically said before the 2005 campaign to parties that he would be watchful about use of parliamentary services money in the 2005 for electioneering purposes. Labour, United Future, the Greens, and New Zealand First ignored these warnings, and spent the money anyway. You’ve admitted that.

I don’t know whether you’re deliberately trying to spin, frankly, or attempting to sound intelligent and failing. Because you’re certainly not armed with the facts.

There is a very clear definition of electioneering. It exists in the current Electoral Act. It includes advertising expenditure by a political party or candidate in the last three months of the election campaign. Clearly it excludes polling, travel, and staffing expenses.

Thankfully a more considered contribution.

My narrow point is just because something that an MP does is within the Parliamentary rules (or outside them for that matter) it doesn’t necessarily mean that it is not an electoral activity and therefore an electoral expense under the Electoral Act 1993. Taking the thing and looking to Parliamentary rules to check compliance will be relevant but not determinative of the issue.

You are correct that the Electoral Finance Bill substantially privileges the political speech of parliamentary actors and political parties and reduces the freedom of expression of non candidates, which are in effect licensed and subject to regulation.

The most interesting question is whether National will commit to a Government Bill should there be a change of government repealing this. Or will they stay silent for fear that if they undertake to offer a Government Bill to repeal it the Exclusive Brethren ‘millstone’ will be hang around their necks in the upcoming campaign.

Sadly I suspect that if the EFB is passed in whatever form restricting non candidate free speech those restrictions will be here to stay. Parliamentary actors quiet like their speech being enhanced. It helps to preserve the political status quo.

Your point about the law not privileging certain types of speech, types of expenditure or funding of expenditure is a strong one.

That is not however how the various Electoral Acts have operated in relation to electoral activities and therefore electoral expenses. Only some expenses have ever been included, much of the electioneering expenditure has always been excluded. The Courts have specifically recognised this in the various decisions on the Electoral Acts.

A blanket inclusion of all parliamentary expenditure or some classes within 3mths of an election would be a considerable change in approach and is problematic giving the irregular time of New Zealand elections.

The other approach is to reduce the regulation of elections, substantially increase or remove expenditure caps and bulk fund MP’s and Parliamentary Parties and subject them to an OIA like disclosure regime.

This approach assumes that existing parliamentary actors do have a benefit from incumbency but no longer the benefit of secrecy and disguising the actual levels of their expenditure. It recognises that almost all of such taxpayer expenditure will be (and always has been) spent in a manner designed to advantage the parliamentary actors spending it.

New entrants would have to overcome the advantages of the incumbents as they have always had to do. However incumbency doesn’t ensure continued presence in Parliament as our own political history shows.

Partly true, but disingenious – they only got those ‘advantages’ by ignoring the rules hoping not to get caught – For example Labour was told that their spending needed to be accounted for, the Labour Party President replying that it would be, and then they didn’t. If it wasn’t wrong, why has EVERY party paid it back?

By making this changes to our laws, ALL parliamentary parties are at a decided advantage against those wishing to get in to parliament. Screwing the scrum against all future political parties or are you stating that every single voter’s political views are represented the current parliamentary parties? And that all those parties not in parliament that stand candiates are not a valid political veiwpoint?

I also believe you are wrong about the EFB – it will put Candiates and MP’s at a huge advantage against anyone that happens to disagree with any position they take on anything, for example the Wellingotn Mayor/City Council would be prevented from spending a very small amount to advocate Transmission Gully as it is a position a political party has taken a position on – United Future, wants it, but the EFB would prevent the WCC from supporting this to any reasonable extent.

Equally any publicity for or objecting to a development will be caught as long as one political party/candiate issues a statement on the development at some stage during an election year. Worse still, if the statement is late in the process, all the spending prior to the statement being made must be included, declared and if over the limit the person/organisation is then acting illegally even if the week before the statement was made they were not.

The law should be changed in exactly the opposite way – making any spending regardless of source be part of the election accounts. I don’t really care if the Labour party uses it’s Parliamentary budget on a Pledge Card – their MP’s will have to budget their other spending to allow it – what I object to is that they can spend it and it is completely unaccounted for. In essence a “parrallel campaign” that the National Party/EB have been accused of, but run by the Labour Party for the Labour Party. If the EB’s “parrallel campaign” was so objectionable, why is it okay for the Labour Party to do it?

The Auditor General’s report occurred after the election not before.

Again there was no advice that the pledge card spend by Labour in 1999, by Labour and National in 2002 was unlawful i.e. outside the appropriation.

My comments on the Electoral Finance Bill are limited only to the issue of the exemption of things done in the capacity of an MP – this area of the law appears unchanged. My opposition to increased regulation of New Zealand elections and the Electoral Finance Bill is on the record [a small nod to the House UnAmerican Activities Committee of this blog]

The proposed Appropriation Bill does make legal that which was previously illegal, parliament has already done that.

Burt:

You seem shocked that politicians will be politicians – get over it.

Bulk fund them to cap taxpayer liability, put in place an OIA like regime so that they are individually accountable for their spend and just accept that they will spend to try to politically advantage themselves.

Bogusnews:

I don’t think Mike Williams wrote to the Auditor General on the issue of the use of taxpayer funds by the Parliamentary Labour Party quite as you say – if he did I stand corrected, and more fool him.

Whaleoil:

Notorious unreliable – the man who gives free speech a bad reputation.

Frank. Says:

The compliant from National to the chief Electoral Officer related to the issue of the pledge card being an electoral activity and therefore an electoral expense, not the issue of whether it was outside the appropriation and therefore illegal.

You are conflating two different legal issues.

Actually I don’t spin for any Party.

No re-writing of history at all.

Yes the Auditor General did issue warnings some of which were included in reports on Government (Executive Branch) communications. None was specifically on the pledge card. If it were so clear that the pledge cards of Labour and National were his target, then his own office missed it. Labour’s pledge card spend in 1999 and the Labour and National pledge cards spend in 2002 passed audit.

There is little doubt that his report into the 2005 publications substantially narrowed the previous understanding of what was permissible. Note that he also declined to investigate other issues of spending of taxpayer money on electioneering because of evidentiary issues – there is little doubt that such spending did occur.

As I have said why the faux shock-horror over parties spending to their political advantage – they will do this whatever the rules. You keep asserting there is a fixed objective definition of “electioneering” – the Auditor General’s definition of electioneering is centred on publications for evidentiary reasons only.

Is taxpayer travel to a tv studio for a political debate “electioneering”?

Is taxpayer polling for a party campaign “electioneering”?

Is employing extra taxpayer paid staff in election year “electioneering”?

The truth is that much of what MP’s do up to and included in the 3 months prior to an election is electioneering. There is no rationale to hammer one form (publishing) and ignore others.

The approach of the auditor general also raised constitutional issues that he seemed to miss completely.

Regarding changing the rules – yes the current situation is hopeless with the Speaker essentially signing off all published communications as complying.

The only saving grace is that at least MP’s and Parliamentary parties are being treated as Government often treats citizens – like naughty children.

At any rate the whole rules based approach is at odds with the objective to controlling the overall spend by the taxpayer and upping the accountability for what MP’s do with the money. On that score National appear to have offered no proposals for reform what so ever.

November 5th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
Lee C:

The 2005 pledge card was identical in terms of format as the one produced in 1999 and 2002. There was no advice that this 2005 spend was an unlawful use of Parliamentary resources prior to this spend occurring. The unlawfulness issue arise as result of the Auditor General’s report and made more pressing as a result of Darton v Clark.”

The unlawfulness of the 2005 Pledge Card was recognised and challenged by Steven Joyce. National Party Secretary with The Chief Electoral Officer
with a letter of complaint on 9 September 2005 just prior to the election.

The Electoral Commission sent a letter of complaint to the Police on 10 February 2006 re this matter, nearly 5 months later. Under the Electoral Act complaints must be lodged within 6 months of an election.

I have the complete police report on their investigation into election advertising. It was a complete shambles. Legal opinions obtained from Crown Law were deleted and other missing documents were sought under the Official Information Act to try to fill in the gaps.

You must also realise that the Solicitor- General, responsible for Crown Law, in an 11 page report, supported the Auditor-General. I also have this full report handed to the Speaker of the House on 6 October 2006.

A few of the Helen Supporters on this thread should read them both and see what a corrupt regime they are supporting.

I would find that hard to believe that Labour has forgiven him for nicking their house in Onehunga and having to expend considerable time energy and money in recovering it through the courts.

Nevertheless, he has crawled out and started spinning Labour spin, so one must assume that all is forgiven and Chris is back home after his trip around the right.

“Media report: A hearing date for the private challenge, being taken by Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton, was to have been set yesterday. But Margaret Wilson’s lawyer, Jack Hodder, has sought a four-week delay so that she can absorb Mr Brady’s conclusions before filing her defence in the private action.”

“The High Court at Wellington has agreed to urgently hear an application for a judicial review of the Electoral Finance Bill.

Justice Denis Clifford considered the application in chambers yesterday, plaintiff John Boscawen said. The High Court at Wellington would hear the application on November 27, said Mr Boscawen, a former Act Party treasurer funding the action.”

How might we confirm which it is?

Gnome:

“This could all be fixed by having state funding of parliamentary campaigning. We already have this with the broadcasting budgets – all it would take is an extra 4 million ($1 per New Zealander) or so on top of that to clean up the electoral process – a small price to pay for proper democracy.”

“I think the problem there was possibly that increased public funding of elections was an unpopular idea with the public, so they concluded that to have sufficient funds to carry out a decent campaign they would need to retain anon donations. what the public doesn’t seem to realise is that it wouldn’t actually take very much of an increase in public funding to make the parliamentary campaigns completely publicly funded.”

I agree. However, in my deeper moments I think that this is one of the reasons the EFB was drafted. It was Labour ’spitting the dummy’ after its attempts to secure public funding was rejected. As for the popularity it had with the public, as a reason, that is debateable. Labour have not shied away from ‘unpopular’ decision before when they felt it necessary. In this case, instead of taking the fight to the public and probably enabling themselves to win the argument, they came up with the EFB. Another reason it was drafted?
It was an attempt to re-cycle the Exclusive Brethren and the National rorting the election line which had rescued them in the previousl election. In a lapse of judgement, Clark gave this to task Burton, and the rest its history.
This will go on her headstone, which is a shame, givern all the wonderful things she has achieved.

I remember Mike Williams writing to the AG admitting this was expenditure they had been warned about and that they would have to pay it back.

Part of the real angst that people felt was because members of the Labour party had admitted this money should not have been spent but still did it anyway, largely because, as I mentioned previously, in spite of the medias best efforts to support Labour, Cullen giving away sackfuls of bribes, Labour knew there were enough sensible people left in NZ to see through this.

Cheating was their last option. Now they are taking this cheating to a whole new level. The only thing a sensible person will say is that this utterly stinks. If this is the best they’ve got, the Labour has got to go.

Am I getting old, or was Chris Diack’s contribution just a very polite, very detailed threadjack attempt?

It had many hallmarks, confused chronology, misinformation, innaccurately used cross-referrals and faintly patronising asides.

All the same, I welcome his/her contribution, I felt that under it all there was a decent human being trying to get out!

“Media report: A hearing date for the private challenge, being taken by Libertarianz leader Bernard Darnton, was to have been set yesterday. But Margaret Wilson’s lawyer, Jack Hodder, has sought a four-week delay so that she can absorb Mr Brady’s conclusions before filing her defence in the private action.

Re-elected members of the Labour caucus are named as first respondent and Margaret Wilson is second respondent – as minister responsible for the Parliamentary Service which paid out $447,000 of taxpayers money for Labour’s pledge card.

The action is quite separate from Mr Brady’s inquiry into taxpayer funded spending by all parties before the election, but at the heart of both is whether money spent on Labour’s pledge card was unlawful.

Mr Darnton is seeking a declaration from the High Court that the spending was unlawful. Mr Brady reached that finding in a provisional report on election spending.’

remember also Parliamentary Services is exempt from the Official Information Act.

According to the Police Commissioner: “Ignorance is Bliss converts to under the Crimes Act.”Ignorance is no excuse for law breaking.

“The 2005 pledge card was identical in terms of format as the one produced in 1999 and 2002. There was no advice that this 2005 spend was an unlawful use of Parliamentary resources prior to this spend occurring. The unlawfulness issue arise as result of the Auditor General’s report and made more pressing as a result of Darton v Clark.”

Yes exactly it was identical to how Labour won 1999 & 2002, that’s why retrospective legislation went back 14 years. Long enough to ensure that no disclosure of the current major parties past deeds need never be made public.

As for Darnton vs Clark, yes that gave the self serving power at any price the motivation to pass the retrospective validation.

As IP said, stop rewriting history.

“The unlawfulness issue arise as result of the Auditor General’s report and made more pressing as a result of Darton v Clark.”

Didn’t the Auditor General’s report indicate they had been told that the Pledge Card would be considered electioneering, but the Labour Party did it anyway, because basically they didn’t agree with the Auditor General. So, rather than challenge the ruling in the proper way, they broke the rules as it suited them?

“What you are probably thinking about is the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the issue of whether the pledge card was an electoral activity and therefore an electoral expense under the Electoral Act 1993.”

Interesting that The Chief Electoral Officer’s advice is merely a cause of an ‘issue’ when it is ignored by the Labour Party, but the grounds for hastily drawn up legislation when it is ignored by, say the Exclusive Brethren.

“That is still possible for any spend under the Appropriation Bill and the Gazetted Rules and under what is proposed under the Electoral Finance Bill.”
So advice ignored, law changed retrospectively to cover the deliberate overspend, and the additional legislation will just set the corrupt practice in stone. That’s ok then is it?

“The consideration as to whether something falls outside the Appropriation and is therefore illegal expenditure and whether something is an electoral activity and therefore an electoral expense under the Electoral Act 1993 are two distinct and separate legal issues.”

Ok, well from what I have read of the EFB, (via Val Sim) “an electoral expense under the Electoral Act 1993″ as outlined by the EFB is a recipe for disaster, it is toothless and confused, incentivises corrupt third-party practice, fails differentiate between ‘honest mistakes’ and criminality and it has been suggested, will incentivise corrupt practice. It also badly cobbles together disparate examples from other countries, and where no justification about its observance to the Bill of Right can be referenced falls back on the ‘well usually we just go with Parliament on that one’ line.
I haven’t looked at the Appropriation Bill, but what do yo think of this idea about the ‘net effect’?
“The net effect of the Electoral Finance Bill and the Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill will be to legalise Labour’s illegal expenditure in 2005, and to criminalise what was legal expenditure in 2005 by other parties.”
I realise they are two separate legal entities, but I can’t help feeling like someone who is being asked to marry one co-joined twin on the premise that the other one ‘won’t listen’ to us on the honeymoon.

You are trying to rewrite history. The A-G signaled well before the 2005 election that parliamentary expenditure for electioneering purposes was unlawful. He repeatedly asked for meetings with Heather Simpson and the Prime Minister to clarify this. The A-G met with other parties to clarify the same.

The Labour Party ignored the A-G’s warnings before the election and spent parliamentary services money–taxpayer’s money–on its pledge card. It then spat the dummy afterwards, refusing to pay the money back, claiming it was unfair that the rules “changed” between 2002 and 2005. That was bullshit. The rules never changed. The rules simply weren’t enforced in 2002. The A-G indicated before the election that the rules would be enforced. The Labour Party called the A-G’s bluff, and never expected the A-G to hold them to account.

Unfortunately for Helen Clark, Heather Simpson, Pete Hodgson, and Mike Williams, the A-G is as good as his word. He did hold them to account.

Now you are trying to spin the issue by claiming that the initial rules weren’t clear. That is an absolute nonsense, and you know that. The rules were clear. Some parties chose to ignore the A-G’s warnings. Others did not. Those who followed the rules in 2005 didn’t have to pay back money they unlawfully spent.

There is no need to change the rules. Unless you’re the Labour Party, and desperate to use any mechanisms at your disposal–including the ability to change the law in your favour–to win the next election.

“So it was sent in the last week of the campaign, with campaign livery and campaign promises, and yet somehow it wasn’t electioneering?”

I never said that. Actually we don’t know the status of the card under the Electoral Act 1993 as it was never tested.