Labour does not know their own law
The Dom Post has an article on Labour’s breaches of the Electoral Finance Act. Labour General Secretary Mike Smith is quoted as saying:
But Mr Smith said the act allowed financial agents to list the address of their party
Really. Why didn’t Mr Smith cite a clause. Maybe because he made it up. Let’s look at the Act. First of all we have s7(1):
The secretary of a party must appoint a financial agent to be responsible for administering the party’s finances.
If none is appointed, the secretary is deemed to be appointed. Then Clause 63(2) says:
No promoter may, during a regulated period, publish, or cause or permit to be published, any election advertisement unless—(a) the advertisement contains a statement that sets out the name and address of the promoter of the advertisement;
And s63(3) paragraph (a) states who maybe a promoter:
the financial agent of a party, but only if the advertisement is a party advertisement promoted by, or on behalf of, that party;
Okay so for all party advertisements, the promoter is the party’s financial agent. And the advertisement must have the name and address of the promoter, ie the financial agent.
So which address can one use. We turn to s5(1)
address means,— (a) in relation to an individual, the full address of the place where that person usually lives:
So the address must be the full address of where the financial agent usually lives. No wriggle room there. So on what basis does Mr Smith argue he can list the party’s address?
Smith also claims:
and the chief electoral officer had given an indication that view was acceptable.
Well this is possible, but beware people purporting to speak on behalf of others. I prefer to go off their direct words to the media:
Electoral Commission chief executive Helena Catt said no concerns had been raised with them from parties about the requirement for a personal address. She said the commission would be unable to change the situation because it was written in the law.
People should note though that the Chief Electoral Officer is a different person to Dr Catt.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Nothing to see here, move on
(Code words for: Who gives a sh*t – Labour is above the law!)
March 7th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
This just proves beyond all doubt what we have suspected all along. The EFB was not written for the Labour party to follow, it was written to silence all other parties. IE: It’s a device to help Labour get their elusive 4th term.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Agree with burt. Alex Mitchell for PM, that will solve all problems.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“O, what a tangled web we weave
When first we practise to deceive.”
Sir Walter Scott—- Marmion
Those who never learn from history are destined to shit in their own nests. Roll on election 2008.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Another apt comparisom between Labour (Clark) and Bush. Both think they are above the law, it is only written to inconvenience others.
March 7th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
Interesting variation on an old cliche there Johnboy. A real kiwiblog comments special I’d say.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Dear Kiwiblog reader,
Why does this not surprise me? How can poor ol’ Labour possibly keep up with all the change they have inflicted upon a bewildered and frustrated public is beyond my meager understanding? I mean to say 3000 new regulations and a 1000 new laws since 1999?? Talk about head spin. Justice John Hansen says we need a radical rethink to how we administer our law in our present dysfunctional justice system, while Sir Goofy Palmer said written law is in a chaotic mess. Our political and judicial systems are that fragile they could crumble very shortly because they dwell in secrecy and a cauldron of grey area law, which is an accepted general concept under Liarbour totalitarianism.
Yours truly
Village Idiot (who is cut slack by blog owner because I have issues!!!!!!)
March 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Surely the simple thing to have done was to authorise it and decide later whether to include it in your return. That’s elementary I would have thought.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Ah, you read that comment d4j?
March 7th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
When the makers of law clearly demonstrate they are incapable of understanding the law they are making then they are incapable of making the law and must go And they must go now.
Which part of this dont you understand you Socialist pond life
March 7th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Shows the Labour party don’t even undertsand the law they promoted and voted for.
But what do you expect from the left – morons.
March 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
I don’t see what the problem is. Smith obviously sleeps at the office.
March 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“Ah, you read that comment d4j?”
I read every comment PaulL .
How many village idiots do you know help put down a couple of ’s? 4 life ?
March 7th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Now there’s really no problem here, all they need to do is keep going as they are, and if they get caught out, just enact some retrospective legislation!
Worked before, didn’t it?
March 7th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
you can watch the engish-king exchange on youtube – http://youtube.com/watch?v=1zqUmQA97Jw
March 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
D4J, I kind of like you. Not sure really why, I guess you sort of become part of the background noise that is Kiwiblog.
I wish that you wouldn’t arc up at every slight and start threatening to sue people, ranting insanely, or generally going off the deep end. That isn’t normal. I guess none of us are normal, seems to me you are a bit further away from the middle than some others.
When you aren’t going feral you’re a pretty good laugh, and when people don’t go out of their way to provoke you then you don’t tend to go feral. Not to excuse your behaviour – you shouldn’t go feral – but equally if certain people didn’t push then it wouldn’t happen so much either.
March 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
“Justice John Hansen says we need a radical rethink to how we administer our law in our present dysfunctional justice system, while Sir Goofy Palmer said written law is in a chaotic mess.”
Well Sir Geoffery was the architect of the RMA, and the stupidity this has spawned, a cafe in Napier had to fork out $72,000 to get the resource consents to put up an awning over its front window to cover the tables & chairs at the front of the shop. This fee had to be paid before the trades people could pick up a hammer. Do we undertand the f…..kin” problem here!!!!
March 7th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
I think as the year goes on there is going to be an ever-increasing crescendo of accusations flying in all directions about breaches of the EFA by all manner of people.
I just hope it doesn’t end up being an endless procession of school-boys appealing to the headmaster and ultimately distracting from more meaty matters that are actually important.
March 7th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Don’t be silly rouppe, as Mike Williams said once about its predecessor, the Electoral Act, the law is quite clear (when it was shown he was totally wrong). And, if not then we always have Annette King’s law of common sense to fall back on.
March 8th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Inventory2: “Nothing to see here, move on….
(Code words for, who gives a sh*t, Labour is above the law).”
I very much fear that you are right, Inventory. I very much fear that the Clarkists KNOW that they have the relevant agencies of the law stacked in their favour…..How many time have the NZ Plods already gone “move along, nothing to see here….” when it was gonna be good for President Klark?
March 8th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
PaulL, I can understand D4J being the way he is, having been thru hell at the hands of the Feminazis……
March 8th, 2008 at 7:21 pm
during Question Time on Thursday Trevor Mallard asserted that he had “been advised that section 4(1)(b) of the Act indicates that a body corporate address can be appropriate”
rubbish
http://www.gavinknight.com/2008/03/ignorance-stupidity-or-hypocrisy.html