Not just the Herald
December 22nd, 2007 at 1:49 pm by David FarrarThe Herald has (rightly) been seen as the media outlet most oppossed to the Electoral Finance Act. But they have lots of allies.
The Dominion Post said:
When United Future MP Peter Dunne is prepared to jump ship, it’s a fair bet the vessel in question is the Titanic, The Dominion Post writes.
… The legislation is undemocratic, and the process by which Labour and its supporters have foisted it on the public has been an exercise in the arrogance of power.… The indefensibility of Labour’s position is only highlighted by the fact that at the same time it acted to restrict the role of those outside Parliament in political debate, it ensured that MPs are protected against challengers by extending a temporary regime that allows them to spend public money on their campaigns in a way the auditor-general had previously ruled was illegal.
And The Press says:
In any event, whatever happens next year, the legislation is thoroughly bad law and the process by which it was shoved through Parliament indefensible.
The Government has only itself to blame for the mess it has made of the matter. The bill was introduced with next to no consultation with anyone other than the cronies Labour needed to get it through the House. This was unforgivable for legislation of this kind. Consensus may be an unreachable goal on something as inherently as contentious as electoral finance, but some measure of consultation was called for. Labour did not make the slightest effort at it. The result was a bill that was a disaster that few but the party’s most uncritical followers could swallow. It was all too plainly designed not to deal honestly and fairly with an important problem but rather to shield an embattled government from any critical comment during an election year. The Government has since made multiple amendments in an attempt to remove some of the more offensive elements of the legislation, but the effort has not been sufficient. The Government was clearly prepared from the outset to ride roughshod over long-established principles. Trying to patch the matter up with all sorts of adjustments and fixes was never going to work. It should have gone back and started the process over.
The country is now left with a highly inadequate piece of legislation governing a central element of the democratic process. Parties and pressure groups will enter the election year with no clear idea of what sort of advertising is permissible. There is a clear risk that parties will engage in tit-for-tat complaints to try to shut down rivals by tying them up with expensive and time-consuming legal battles. Worse than that, from January 1, 11 months before any likely election, a firm engaged by the Electoral Commission will be conducting surveillance of political advertising to see that it complies with the law, something that will strike most fair-minded people as having the smack of Big Brother about it.
The Northern Advocate:
It’s a victory for shroud-waving, paranoia, envy and deceit. It gives power to the parties and to hell with the people. It says that if you can’t win by fair means, then make the foul lawful.
It has all been a telling illustration of how immune politicians can become to adverse public opinion that they can treat those to whom they should be answerable with such arrogance.
Having none themselves, they fail to recognise principles in others and scorn any who raise a voice in dissent as being driven by greed and self interest. By their definition it is not possible to defend democracy or to be capable of moral rectitude without agreeing implicitly with their own political ambitions.
I am told there is also an excellent ODT editorial, but I can’t locate a copy.
Related posts:
- Herald on EFB
- NZ Herald Editorial on Taxpayer Funding of Parties
- NZ Herald on electoral finance
- NZ First on Electoral Reform
December 22nd, 2007 at 2:08 pm
“When United Future MP Peter Dunne is prepared to jump ship, it’s a fair bet the vessel in question is the Titanic”
At least he can have a lifeboat all to himself or at worst have to share one with Jim.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:29 pm
Bwakile:
A lifeboat isn’t much use if you’re still stuck in troubled waters.
And here’s the thing: Peter Dunne doesn’t come away smelling like roses. He supported the first reading before the Select Committee (supposedly) fixed up the EFB. Tick. He supported the second reading – after the EFB was (supposedly) fixed up. Tick. So he supported the EFB on either side of the Select Committee report. More to the point, he supported the disgraceful process used to pass the EFB into law (the bare slimmest of margins, and complete lack of proper consultation).
It’d be interesting to go back and see how Hansard records Peter “Common Sense” Dunne’s shifting positions on the EFB.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 pm
‘It has all been a telling illustration of how immune politicians can become to adverse public opinion that they can treat those to whom they should be answerable with such arrogance.’
You know when you see those ducumentaries of sharks and they have those little parasitic fish following them around so they can clean the lice out of their gills?
That is my analogy for those m**th*rs who think are licenced to display the same arrogance when they visit defend the government’s attitude over the EFA.
“Having none themselves, they fail to recognise principles in others and scorn any who raise a voice in dissent as being driven by greed and self interest.”
They actually believe they have some kind of God-given right to re-define what constitutes freedom of democratic expression don’t they?
“By their definition it is not possible to defend democracy or to be capable of moral rectitude without agreeing implicitly with their own political ambitions.”
Or, in my opinion, they are mere parasites
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Yes, that goes for Peter Dunne too. He had ample opportunity to ‘stand up and be counted’ before the vote, but thought he’d have a bob both ways.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Lee:
I quite agree with your 2:35 comment. We live in a Westminster democracy – how many times have you heard this?
So why can’t MPs across all segments of the dart-board stand up for due parliamentary process? One might argue that parliament process was followed. But the nature of the legislation (affecting elections) suggests that we didn’t see due process. I really wish people could remove the partisan blinkers, drop the simplistic slogans, and see this farce for what it is.
Or are all the newspaper editorials out of line?
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:48 pm
But the ODT has published many partisan opinion pieces justifying the EFB, with little criticism of the outrageous content or process. From eg. Simon Cunliffe who wears the authoritative label of “senior reporter”.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:53 pm
POC
I agree
My initial thoughts were that you can’t abandon a ship that’s already sunk.
You are in the “captain goes down with the ship” catagory.
But if he can suck the voters in his electorate once more next year then I suspect that he may become an irrelevant “sole occupant” of a taxpayer lifeboat.
I struggle to find anyone that still supports him and I knew a few.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:55 pm
In the world of ideas, If the host dies, then the parasites die also. Their protection of the host is naked self-interest, dressed up as principles.
In reality, they cannot think it through for themselves and are frightened to lose the host. It is part of the symbiotic relationship that the sustenance for these parasites is to be told what ideas are best expressed.
It was only a matter of evolutionary certainty that a Party host which is based on the premise that it thinks it knows which thoughts are the best ones, would eventually invent a law and process designed to ensure its own survival, by suppressing ‘unhealthy’ thoughts.
It naturally follows that the parasites which feed from that host, would line up to applaud the move.
Dunne?
He’s just spotted a bigger fish, that’s all.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
Off topic; It used to be that occasionally MPs would cross the floor, each MPs vote would be counted seperately as they walked through the ayes and nays doors or some such. Mike Minogue was famous/infamous for not towing the party line.
Vote:But watching these rounds on the EFB, it’s just one person who announces the votes for the whole party.
Was this change a result of MMP, which increased the power of party over the individual MP?
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
AndrewW:
I can’t remember when this change occurred, but even if it did coincide with MMP, it’s surely about modernising archiac parliamentary procedure. Watching the gaggle of political geese flocking through the ayes or nays door was a complete waste of time.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 3:13 pm
But I like the idea of MPs having the power to vote according to their personal views rather than slavishly following the party line.
Registering the votes of Individual MPs needn’t be archiac.
MMP increases the power of the party over individual MPs, whereas the US system allows representatives to vote as individuals.
One of the reasons for going this way is probably to avoid the problem of pairing absent MPs when you have several parties in parliament, but is one consequence of this that few MPs are now in parliament, unless they themselves have a speech to present?
It’s supposed to be a debating chamber where people HEAR, the views of other parlimentarians, obviously Dunne didn’t hear much (so presumably he wasn’t there) or he wouldn’t have been talking so much garbage about the EFB for so long.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 3:19 pm
“Watching the gaggle of political geese flocking through the ayes or nays door was a complete waste of time.”
Vote:Not necessarily, how many times was ever a lone conscience pricked by having to go through that process?
As a process, it was probably invented for a good reason, and investing the process with a tiny psychological check and balance against sheep-like behavour and fear of the abuse of procedure we have seen recently might have been amongst them….
December 22nd, 2007 at 3:22 pm
AndrewW:
Some interesting comments – here’s my thoughts (for what they’re worth):
Here’s an idea that’ll never see daylight: why not equip each MP with an electronic voting kit and have blind voting? That way, even if a rogue MP doesn’t toe the party line, no-one will know who it is.
I support your sentiment about individual conscience being subjugated to “party conscience” (an oxymoron if ever I heard one). I’m on record here as saying I don’t like the party system infiltrating local body politics. I shouldn’t have to vote for people on a “ticket” of this political cause or the other.
Even when they are there, there’s often not much substance. Surely you’ve heard speeches from Jill Pettis and Dianne Yates – to single out two offenders of public speaking?
As I understood it, MMP was supposed to be about engendering a representative democracy (the Nandors/Bunkles/Byers of this world). That purpose is hardly served if there’s a no-show in the House – except perhaps for the political equivalent of Playschool: question time.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 3:33 pm
Andrew W.
I think it’s essential. I think we need the voices of the individuals that were voted into parliament to represent the people to be known, their values and principals tested on every significant issue is not a lot to ask when we are paying their salaries to represent us. Too much to ask from a ‘yes minister’ party, perhaps one day we will have a genuine coalition in NZ and then the idea may catch on.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Political parties have grown in importance over individual MPs inside parliament in the same way they’ve been placed above “third parties” outside parliament.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 3:42 pm
All power to the party comrade!
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Yes i can see it , the( dom and the herald editors in jail ), the shits decending on the witch and luck and her deviant advisiors are slipping in advice and in ALL the polls, fuck what a laugh, james creep and the other deviants can wax and wane in praise of the barren sexless witch ,but the writings on the wall THE FUTURE IS KEY a rich prick ( but he has one ) unlike the lesbian sisterhood, prickless,
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 6:08 pm
DPF: “The Herald has (rightly) been seen as the media outlet most opposed to the Electoral Finance Act. But they have lots of allies.”
Purely lip-service. Like the Opposition in Parliament _”All sound and fury signifying nothing”. No positive action.
The only formal complaint (Extract below) laid with Police was dismissed by the Office of the Commissioner 9 November 2007, literally grasping at straws, to protect them with “YE OLDE AND ANCIENTE BILL OF RIGHTS ACT1688” to avoid to any investigation into MPs.
“I allege that those Members of Parliament who supported the Electoral Finance Bill through the House have done so in an endeavour to advantage themselves over other parties and the voter. In so doing, they are in breach of the Crimes Act 1961, under those sections that are applicable to those in the Service of the Crown”.
I received this response 9 November 2007:“You appear to be inviting the Commissioner to take action under the Crimes Act 1961.
I refer you to the Bill of rights Act 1688, section 1 having application in New Zealand by virtue of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. the relevant portion states:
“That the freedome of speech and debates of proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament”
Key words I thought were” ought not to be”? I question this as it does not imply “must not”.
Matt McCarten: Herald 18 November: “Instead we have a situation where Labour – no matter what it does now – looks like it is manipulating election laws to advantage itself over its opponents and limit independent criticism. (“Looks like it is manipulating election laws?”. [“Looks like” – It damn well is!”])
So MPs have the Police sewn up?
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Frank:
You often reproduce your correspondence file, and I’m now familiar enough with it to follow your line of argument. With respect, though, I doubt you could find any court (perhaps even in Zimbabwe, but who knows) that upholds your interpretation.
I doubt I’ll convince you, but let me try. There’s no inherent conflict between the Bill of Rights Act 1688 and the Crimes Act 1961. MPs are subject to the Crimes Act where a specific offence appears to have been committed (a certain Mr Field comes to mind). MPs are voted in by the people, and in theory, should vote according to their conscience. I really don’t see how you can sensibly translate this [MPs voting for the EFB] into police corruption or judicial interference. You’d need to show a specific offence under the Crimes Act, which so far you haven’t done.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 6:23 pm
Off topic (No General Debate thread)
Far north iwi and crown reach settlement in principle
That’s three settlements inside two weeks. This might be well received by the iwi concerned… but i’m skeptical about the timing. Anyone know if H1 has given a ‘Hurry up, I need a lift in the polls’ jab to the OTS?
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Andrew W, “I like the idea of MPs having the power to vote according to their personal views”. Hush Andrew, you are talking treason and you will get a visit from the thought police if you are not careful. There is only one vote that counts in this country and it comes from the 9th floor of the beehive. And of course we all know what lives in a beehive, drones, lots of mindless drones. You can’t tell me that of all the MPs that voted for this EFB not one of them thought this bill was bullshit, they are a combination of self serving suckling pigs and gutless wonders.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 6:34 pm
Krazykiwi:
That’s possible. Another interpretation is “getting things out of the way” just before Christmas. It’s a bit like our hardworking public servants releasing a barrage of “consultation reports” just before Christmas, with a submission deadline early in the New Year – this seems to happen every year.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Further to my previous post (then I’ll shut up):
IRD discussion papers released in December 2007:
- Taxation of the life insurance business: proposed new rules
A Government discussion document
- Reducing tax compliance costs for small and medium-sized enterprises
- New Zealand’s International Tax Review [the treatment of foreign dividends and transitional issues]
http://www.taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/publications/index.php?catid=2
Closing date for these discussion papers:
- Life insurance business – 12 February 2008
- Tax compliance costs – 15 February 2008
- International tax review – 31 January or 29 February (depending on which aspect of the discussion paper the submission relates to)
No doubt other government departments have equally tight deadlines.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 6:48 pm
I am an electorate treasurer for a political party.
Vote:Head office has e mailed me my instructions on how I must comply with this act.
I will be walking on egg shells.
It is unbelievable.
If I was to thrust eleven Lord Rutherfords into the grasping hands of a Labour Party fund raiser, and IF it turned out that the anonymous donation was not forwarded to the Electoral Commission, would that disqualify all Labour Party candidates. If so then my anonymous donation would be the best money I ever spent in my life.
December 22nd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy: The crux of my argument relates to the Crimes Act 1961 and quotes those sections of the Act that relate to MPs or any other “Official” such as a Judge , State Servant (Hugh Logan etc that take advantage of their position as “In the Service of the Crown” to advantage themselves to the disadvantage of others. The Validation Act, for arguments sake – Madeline Setchell, Erin Leigh etc.
Show me why this doesn’t apply?
Why have it in the Crimes Act 1961 at all, if it not there for out of control politicians?
Why hasn’t it been deleted when no one has ever been charged under these Sections of the Crimes Act – not even Field. No way. That would really open a can of worms?
Scrap them like acts of treason
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 7:58 pm
Frank:
I’m still not convinced by your argument. It takes an overly literal view of the Crimes Act 1961 – a kind of “bush lawyer” interpretation. Let me explain.
Part 6 (which your argument presumably relates to) is headed “Bribery and corruption“. Bribe means “any money, valuable consideration, office, or employment, or any benefit, whether direct or indirect“.
Now take, for example, section 102(1):
Sections 100, 101, 103, 104, 105 and 105A all come within Part 6, and similarly include the “corruptly” requirement.
Now we’ve got the statutory context, try explaing to me specifically how an MP voting on legislation will fall foul of Part 6?
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 8:07 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy Says:
December 22nd, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Frank: “….You’d need to show a specific offence under the Crimes Act, which so far you haven’t done.”
I am quite certain I have shown on Kiwiblog previously that police buried my complaints against Helen’s pledge card misappropriation, and the complaint against Phillip Taito Field – both in the Service of the Crown>
Both are now subject now to Independent Police Conduct Complaints. As Police Documents confirmed at the time these complaints, but are now denying.
Isn’t that termed preventing and denying the course of justice?
Where are any Police Media reports on the matters? All hushed up by a corrupt Police Force!
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
Frank:
*Sigh*
Vote:You’re taking one or two phrases (such as “in the service of the Crown”), citing circumstantial rejection of your numerous complaints, and then saying “I rest my case”. Now, just so we progress somewhere useful, could you kindly quote me a specific section of the Crimes Act, and then show me how each element of that section is satisfied to the requisite legal standard?
December 22nd, 2007 at 9:16 pm
AndrewW said But I like the idea of MPs having the power to vote according to their personal views rather than slavishly following the party line.
I bet Lesley Soper would too. Toeing the party line has her as public enemy number one in Southland. Mind you , she doesn’t help herself by justifying it – rather poorly – in the pages of the local rag.
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
So no post on the child smacking prosecution stats then?
Vote:http://www.stuff.co.nz/4331429a6160.html
December 22nd, 2007 at 10:34 pm
Peak Oil Conspiracy:
The police have Judicial approval to proceed with their case against Field so it must be related to the following sections of the Crimes Act 1961 under which my complaints were laid.
s. 99. Interpretation: In this part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires;
Bribe means any money, valuable consideration, office, or employment, or any benefit, whether direct or indirect
Official means any person in the service of Her Majesty in right of New Zealand (whether that service is honorary or not, and whether it is within or outside New Zealand), or any member or employee of any local authority or public body, or any person employed in the Education service within the meaning of the State Sector Act 1988
102 corruption and bribery of a Minister of the Crown
1) Every Minister of the Crown or member of the Executive Council is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his capacity as a Minister or member of the Executive Council.
2) Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person with intent to influence any Minister of the Crown or member of the Executive Council in respect of any act or omission by him in his capacity as a Minister or member of the Executive Council
103 104 etc
107: In subsection (2) of this section, the terms Imperial enactment and Imperial subordinate legislation have the meanings given to them by section 2 of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988.
[Needs to be tested in Court]
116: Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who conspires to obstruct, prevent, pervert, or defeat the course of justice [in New Zealand or the course of justice in an overseas jurisdiction].
Why would police promise to investigate and then claim the complaint doesn’t exist? No Criminal intent shown?
Helen Clark promised the House 10 April 2003 that every (Any) complaint of corruption woulds be investigated! So her word is being tested and found wanting.
Very Misleading
Vote:December 22nd, 2007 at 10:55 pm
Frank:
A couple of things:
(1) You’re still quoting the legislation generally, without showing how each element is satisfied to the requisite legal standard.
(2) A factual correction: the Police actually have leave to prosecute Field under section 103 of the Crimes Act (as an MP) – not section 102 (as a Minister). But, as I said, the same basic “corruptly” requirement applies under that section.
(3) I’m not sure I follow why you think section 107 needs to be tested. Perhaps you could expand on this?
(4) “Why would police promise to investigate and then claim the complaint doesn’t exist?“. I’m not sure what complaint you’re referring to here.
(5) My general point: there’s surely a difference between Field who’s accused of committing an actual corruption offence and MPs who vote on legislation generally. Taken to its extreme conclusion, your argument would have MPs voting for tax reduction legislation (say) charged with corruption, simply because they’d derive a financial benefit from the enacted legislation. There has to be some reality check? Now if a particular MP was paid to vote in a particular way (presumably such bribery, to be effective, would have to cover at least a handful of MPs) then that’s something else.
(6) I’m not suggesting that the Police are in any way perfect. As DPF has shown, their handling of the pledge card spending was less than satisfactory.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 7:43 am
Lets cut to chase here.
Nothing in this law is going to stop this government being voted out either this election or next election or the one after.
If the law is so terrible then it will be repealed then.
Unless people here are so convinced that National is so toxic that unless they are permitted to spend millions more than Labour they will never get elected.
All this law is attempting to do is keep elections issue based and not money based. So less scope to do the old iwi/kiwi billboard dog whistling, stupid third party attack pamphlets a more emphasis on policy and each party persuading the public through debates, meetings and policy pamphleting.
It is actually most likely to improve political debate in this country. Iwi/kiwi billboarding might be clever, it might work but it is piss poor public discourse.
The EFB will improve the quality of democracy and I see no reason why National wont win back government under its rules with good policy well argued.
As for free speech, remember when National overbooked TV adverts, thats a restriction on free speech too. And everyone is happy and accepts it as publically beneficial.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 8:51 am
GREAT cartoon in todays Sunday Star Time, by Bromhead , , open top mercedes, helen and hitler,, all the same , hitler and helen ,both words roll off the tongue the same way.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 8:59 am
Oh great stuff John , can we expect Miss Klark too construct the kiwi autobahn so she can travel at the speed of sound to the next Pink Blacks footy match ?
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 am
natural party of govt: “The EFB will improve the quality of democracy”.
It is not only the EFB, but all the rorts that went on before, during and continues after the election and is now influencing the next election that “will improve the quality of democracy”.
Why?
Because the voting public are becoming aware of the criminal abuse of our Electoral System.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 9:20 am
Wow i’nt it fantastic. The holidays start and the level of comment goes up by 50% Reason opinion and good analysis and then NPOG and SHort tries to desperately drag it down to their level again. Guys great blog for you over at the standard. Just take plenty of plasters for your knuckles. (Either for fighting or dragging – both acceptable – no mandatory over there.)
For the rest of you merry Xmas. I hope you have a fantastic time and may you find joy in all things. This is the last Christams my family will be in NZ.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 9:55 am
Anyone with more than two working neurons knows this isn’t the case. Democracy isn’t enhanced by increased prohibition, but by increased diversity of thought, participation and tolerance
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 11:57 am
Peak Oil Conspiracy: I have endeavoured to answer the points you have raised. I am grateful to DPF for being able to take advantage of his Kiwiblog to state my side of the case.
(1) It is not my job to show to show how each element is satisfied to the requisite legal standard. That is the job for the police. I can provide the complaint and offer what I consider is prima facie evidence for back-up to my complaint. (Remember “Paintergate “ was based on a two line complaint based on a newspaper report.” Motorcade” was based on citizen’s reports. Helen Clark: ”Every responsible citizen will report wrongdoing to the appropriate authority” – “All, any complaints of corruption will be investigated”.
(2) Thank you for the factual correction. I was unaware that Field had been charged under 103 as an MP and not under 102 as a Minister of the Crown. My complaint of the 19 07 2006 was laid under this Category. It was as a Minister he offended. His position as a Minister enabled him, in my view, to disadvantage people that sought his help and advice. Remember the Samoan couple that sold him their house, when they were in financial difficulties and he made a profit of $140,000. If he had not been an MP he would never have been approached and thus been able to take advantage of them to his own gain. That is despicable in anybody’s culture!
(3) I think section 107 needs to be tested because the Office of the Commissioner told me 9 November 2007 that MPs were protected as follows:
“You appear to be inviting the Commissioner to take action under the Crimes Act 1961.
I refer you to the Bill of Rights Act 1688, section 1 having application in New Zealand by virtue of the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. the relevant portion states:
“That the freedome of speech and debates of proceedings in Parlyament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parlyament”
Key words I thought were” ought not to be”? I question this as it does not imply “must not”.
(4) Police denied on 5 December 2007 the existence of the complaint laid with Police Commissioner Howard Broad on 19 07 2006 against Field. I have the Herald newspaper and local paper articles (National Press Releases) carrying the story of my complaint. I have letters of 1 November 2006 from the Commissioner, confirming the complaint. My complaint was never formally acknowledged until then. However under the Official Information Act I did receive an internal copy (30 July 2006) from the Office of the Commissioner that confirmed that my complaint had been lodged. What a tangled web we weave when there is a change of staff at the Commissioner’s Office?
The matter is now being vigorously pursued.
(5) Police had a prima facie case against Heather Simpson and the Pledge card. The Auditor-General and Solicitor-General found illegal overspending in the last election. The Office of the Police Commissioner received my complaint 10 February 2006 about the Misappropriation of Helen’s Leader’s funds, and did nothing about it. Bernard Darnton challenged the legality of the Pledge Card in the High court, but it was wiped by the Validation Bill, despite members of parliament being alerted to this lack of investigation by police. Had police investigated in the first case there would be no Validation Act – no EFA
Members of Parliament, in my opinion, as officials in the “Service of the Crown” in this case, advantaged themselves to the disadvantage of others, Bernard Darnton. myself, yourself, and voters by validating criminal acts. I am sure this criminal behaviour is not the intended use of Parliament. It shows a justice system out of control.
(6) You say: police “handling of the pledge card spending was less than satisfactory”. It was perversion and defeat of the course of justice and led to perjury.
Vote:December 23rd, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Priceless, (off topic) sorry David., iwi settlements, but some maori think they are more important than the other maori in their own iwi and want the farms given free of charge from the rest of NZ, shit this beats stealing bodies and anything else not nailed down, iwi ripping of their own iwi, what a laugh.
Vote:December 24th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
Frank:
I’ve just noticed your thoughtful response to my points. I’m too busy at present to take this further, but it’s been a great discussion, and I did want to acknowledge your response. It sounds like you’re still progressing a couple of complaints through the system; hopefully you’ll keep Kiwiblog readers informed in 2008?
Have a great Christmas!
Vote: