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!

(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.

The EFB will improve the quality of democracy

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

*Sigh*
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 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!

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.

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):

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.

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?

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

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.

Anyone know if H1 has given a ‘Hurry up, I need a lift in the polls’ jab to the OTS?

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.