Another late donation return
The Greens have disclosed a large donation from Bryan Forde, but appear to have done so later than required, and also broken the law.
Forde appears to be an Audiologist in Invercargill and he donated $300 in May 2007 and $20,000 on 3 April 2008. A further $4,450 was donated on 28 April 2008.
Now as at 3 April 2008 he had donated $20,300 over a 1 month period. s54 of the Electoral Finance Act says:
54(2) says:
Every financial agent must file with the Electoral Commission a return in respect of every party donation that—
(a) the financial agent knows is from a donor who in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of receipt of the donation (the last 12 months) has made 1 or more previous donations; and
(b) when aggregated with all previous donations received from the donor in the last 12 months exceeds $20,000.
54(6) also:
A return must be filed under subsection (1) or (2) within 10 working days of the donation being received by the financial agent.
Now the Greens were required to file a return within 10 working days, which was Thursday 17 April 2008. The Electoral Commission say they will publish them within three working days so if it went up today it appears to have only been filed on or after Tuesday 29 April 2008. That would suggest the Greens were 12 days late with disclosing the aggregated donation.
Curious minds may like to inquire as to why they appeared to have broken the law they so passionately defended and insisted on. Also why does a donor make an additional $4,450 donation a few weeks after a $20,000 donation?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Did it occur to you that maybe the EFB wasn’t “passionately defended and insisted on” on the basis of preventing late filing of returns?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:19 pm
INCREDIBLE. Why would anyone with $20,000 to spare give it to the Greens? Same paradox as all those super wealthy people in the US particularly supporting environmentalist and left-wing causes (as I keep trying to point out to those who will keep repeating the myth about the biggest money being on the Right of politics).
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:25 pm
The answer to why the Greens tried to milk (a better word escapes me) the system is easy.
Look at the company they keep – Labour and NZ First.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Anyone ask Labour if they’ve “forgotten” any more $100,000 wads of cash they were handed?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:27 pm
PB—He probably gets a lot of customers from the greens most of them would be half deaf from the loud farting that follows every meal of organic baked bean and lentil stew.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
I got a letter from the Greens one election asking for a donation. I sent them a small hydrangea. Never got a tax receipt for it.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Oh my god! 12 whole days!!! Hanging’s too good for them.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Not hanging, just prosecution for breaking the law – as I also advocated for ACT and NZ First. Some parts of the law such as what is an election advertisement are very unclear and in those cases I have supported the Electoral Commission not prosecuting.
But in the case of when donation disclosures must be made, the law is very clear.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
So what’s the penalty anyway..?
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:44 pm
$20,000 of open, honest money David? But the money was registered 12 days late? And so this involves a technical illegality. A bit like filing your tax return a couple of weeks late. So please explain to me how this is a story?
Now, National received around $1.4 million in secret hollow-men money during 2005. That’s what I call a story Davey.
May 2nd, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Roger, technically illegal means what? Seems to me it’s like pregnant – you are or you aren’t. We shouldn’t pass laws we don’t intend to enforce, so please enlighten me as to your position. Do you think that:
a) It is fine to pass a law then not enforce it (and if so, why?)
b) The Green’s didn’t break the law
c) The Green’s did break the law, and therefore should be prosecuted like any other NZer would be
The integrity of our electoral system is one of the most important things in our democracy – we have few checks and balances. If the argument was that these provisions were needed in order to control anonymous donations, then surely it is important that those provisions be enforced. If we were close to election day those 12 days could be quite important – if the EB had donated to National and they had been tardy in telling people I’m sure you would be screaming blue murder.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
National did nothing illegal. It cannot be secret as we know about it. What you are trying to imply is that the money was illegal, when it was merely anonymous.
National did not break the law. The Greens, ACT and Winston First have.
I am sure that DPF would support National being prosecuted if they broke the law also.
BTW what is the difference between an illegality or crime and a technical illegality. It is either illegal or it is not.
So nome condemns National for not committing a crime, but condones The Greens for committing one. A rather peculiar set of values.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Technically illegal is like stealing $800,000 of public money for political purposes until you have passed the retrospective legislation to then change it into completely within the law I think. Its based on the same dubious morality that enables you to sign someone else’s painting as your own.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
PaulL – Small amount of money (less than 0.5% of what National spent on electioneering in 2005). Small amount of time.
If you really think that this breach of the law “threatens the integrity of our democracy” may i suggest a lie down and a cup of tea for you?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“National did nothing illegal. It cannot be secret as we know about it.”
Semantics. Something being legal does not make it categorically “good” and something being illegal doesn’t make it categorically “bad”. For instance, National’s hollow-men money laundering outfits, though legal, weren’t good for our democracy, and you could hardly argue that this minor breach of electoral law is “bad” for our democracy.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:11 pm
roger nome said “Now, National received around $1.4 million in secret hollow-men money during 2005. That’s what I call a story Davey.”
You really like stirring shit don’t you rog. If you’re so keen on stories, why don’t you talk to Hager – he tells a mean one! National’s donations were legal as per the law that applied at the time. But that doesn’t stop you making smears at every opportunity.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Did it occur to you that maybe the EFB wasn’t “passionately defended and insisted on” on the basis of preventing late filing of returns?
The law, is the law.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Rogern…,Paul L. is right the law is the law. If the Electoral Commission warns one party, or ignores an offence by another then they set a precedent (in my view) by which other parties can expect to be treated if they offend in a like manner. It is no use them warning Liabour as they did for a recent transgression and then prosecute National for a similar offence.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
If you go on like this rog, we might have to rename you “the intellectual midget”
You must be if you cannot distinguish the between a thread on being what is legal and what is illegal and whether the authorities have an obligation to uphold the law and a thread that discusses relative moral attitudes and different definitions of what is “good” and what is “not good”.
Is the state still paying you to attend Uni Rog? God forbid that you are actually tutoring.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Semantics. Something being legal does not make it categorically “good” and something being illegal doesn’t make it categorically “bad”.
You only think its bad because the money is going to the National party! Spare me your faux outrage – people like you wont be happy until this country is a one party state.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Surely you agree roger that “Small amount of money (less than 0.5% of what National spent on electioneering in 2005). Small amount of time.” simply justifies a small penalty, and leave it at that?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
“The law, is the law.”
And a redundant statement, is a redundant statement.
In reality the Commission decides which breaches of the Act they suggest prosecution for, and which ones they don’t. Generally the small breaches get a warning, because they don’t, in any material way, undermine the intentions of the Act. This breach obviously falls into that category.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 pm
National’s broadcasting overspend was not legal but they were not prosecuted and I’m glad of that as all laws should be applied with some commons sense and discretion. In fact discretion is elemental to all law, without it the law would be unworkable. David knows this but has chosen to ignore it in favour of whipping up a nothing story about a party he disagrees with.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Johnboy: “Technically illegal is like stealing $800,000 of public money for political purposes until you have passed the retrospective legislation to then change it into completely within the law I think. Its based on the same dubious morality that enables you to sign someone else’s painting as your own.”
Technically you don’t even have to be involved in theft or other such nefarious activity. All you have to do is to use your authority. For example as the boss of Immigration Services, and you want to get preferential treatment for immediate family, you don’t sign the order yourself, you just get your trusted “Bully Boys” to stand over a couple of underlings until they complete the necessary documentation.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Ferdinand – National should have been prosecuted. It was an error but it was one that, as far as I can see, has strict liability. A Court may well have dealt with it leniently but that was a matter for the Court and not the police.
Of course Labour should have been buried for a corrupt practice but again the police exercised that infamous discretion again.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Roger’s position is no party that he supports should ever get prosecuted, even if they break the law, while those parties he does not support should always be prosecuted whether they break the law or not. What other conclusion could one reach from his arguments?
Those of us who like to have even a small degree of intellectual integrity aim for something called consistency. Hence I have advocated National and ACT should be prosecuted for their breaches of various laws and have also advocated Labour should not have been prosecuted over their pamphlet which was found to be an election advertisement, as it was relatively trivial.
Roger has a disturbing habit of excusing almost any behaviour from parties he supports. There’s a word for that.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
And a redundant statement, is a redundant statement.
Whats redundant about it? Or are you refering to Helen’s position after the election?
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:43 pm
David Farrar:
“There’s a word for that.”
You can say it David. It isn’t parliament you know
“Roger has a disturbing habit of excusing almost any behaviour from parties he supports”
Whoa, easy on the smears DPF. As you know, I’ve critcised certain Labour Party officials over the pledge card issue.
As it happens I don’t think that Act, NZ1 or the Greens should be prosecuted for these small breaches of the Act as they don’t undermine the Act’s intentions. The fact that you’re trying to turn this into a media beat-up shows just how much of an opportunistic, faux-outrage exponent you really are.
[DPF: Not at all. I said Labour should not be prosecuted for their lack of authorisation. But donation disclosure deadline dates are important - I have always said transparency is important. I take it from your lack of comment on NZ First you agree they should be prosecuted]
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Roger has a disturbing habit of excusing almost any behaviour from parties he supports. There’s a word for that.
I know your word begins with H, but mine begins with an A. Though I think it has a hole somewhere too….
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 pm
And Bevan – I resent being called and apologist
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Skating on thin ice there rog…
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Actually I thought he was calling you an asshole Rog. My mistake huh.
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Can a member of the public bring a private prosecution?
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:21 pm
Actually I thought he was calling you an asshole Rog. My mistake huh.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Roger, wasting our time. You provide no defence as to why this is minor other than it is “obviously” so. Having just said that it is a matter for the electoral commission – presumably so long as they see obvious in the same way as you.
DPF is quite entitled to continue to call for enforcement of the law. I think the point here is that this person gave $20K which they presumably thought would not require disclosure, and they got picked up by requirement to disclose because of a small donation last year. It is yet another example of why this law is unworkable, and why the administration cost of trying to be compliant with it is way greater than the problems it purports to solve.
DPF is totally consistent in continuing to highlight the fact that both the authors of this law and those who supported it clearly didn’t understand it, and themselves find it hard to remain in compliance with it. Roger is attempting to duck and weave, but again (as I have noted before), you made the bed, it is time to have a lie down. You defended the bill when it was at select committee, you continue to defend it now. At what point will you admit it was misconceived and it is unworkable?
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Adam: he added the ‘hole” (really mature) part in as an edit after I made that quip.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:45 pm
c’mon Roger, how can anybody debate with you when your argument is basically “Labour Good, National Bad, DPF always evil”. Buggered if I know why DPF hasn’t restricted your privileges by now, but I guess given he puts up with GWW, you’re probably the least of his worries.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:46 pm
# roger nome (2919)
May 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 pm
“National did nothing illegal. It cannot be secret as we know about it.”
Semantics. Something being legal does not make it categorically “good” and something being illegal doesn’t make it categorically “bad”. For instance, National’s hollow-men money laundering outfits, though legal, weren’t good for our democracy, and you could hardly argue that this minor breach of electoral law is “bad” for our democracy.
Well, I never said it was good. Nor did I say that the breach was bad. I said it was illegal. That is something completely different.
You seem nome to be very confused. You confuse laws with ethics and morals.
You can have laws which permit activities many disapprove of and laws which prohibit activities many approve of. The issue is not one of good and evil but one of legal and illegal.
Further, in a society such as ours you cannot pick and choose which laws to obey and which not to. For example, I may not approve of the EFA, but whilst it is on the statute books, I and everyone else have to obey it – else I break the law and penalties are stipulated for breaking it. Society does not permit me to choose whether or not to obey the law.
Civilised societies permit me to campaign for law changes, they do not permit freedom of choice as to what laws to obey.
For example I believe it is illegal to receive stolen property and to profit from the use/sale of that property. Therefore, why has Nicky Hager not been prosecuted for receiving stolen property – Emails and profiting from them – writing his turgid opus – The Hollow Men.
Laws are laws. If you break the law then you have committed an illegal act, whether or not you get prosecuted and punished is another matter.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:47 pm
My feeling is that NZ First have something to hide and we can expect Winston to indulge in his usual round of abuse and bullying to deflect attention.
To stop this, these returns should be subject to audit by the Auditor- General.
May 2nd, 2008 at 4:52 pm
Paul:
“You provide no defence as to why this is minor other than it is “obviously” so.”
Comprehension problem – I said, in the context of election spending it’s small, and the amount of time it was late is small. So it’s a small breach.
“DPF is totally consistent in continuing to highlight the fact that both the authors of this law and those who supported it clearly didn’t understand it, and themselves find it hard to remain in compliance with it.”
There are still a few minor problems with people getting caught unawares, but this will happen with any new law. There are still a few technical difficulties with it, which will take time to work out through precident setting, and there’s always the opportunity to amend the few parts that possibly don’t happen work out in practice. So I think it’s the position of a fundamentalist to be throwing the baby out with the bath-water in this instance. It greatly improves the transparency of our democracy, and so is a big improvement on the last Act.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Roger Nome at 4.52 said
There are still a few minor problems with people getting caught unawares, but this will happen with any new law. There are still a few technical difficulties with it, which will take time to work out through president setting, and there’s always the opportunity to amend the few parts that possibly don’t happen work out in practice.
It seems to me that you have made something of a Freudian slip here. It seems that it is Labour who keeps getting caught out. I am sure Mike Williams as Labour Party President, will happily set out the precedent for you – pledge cards, confusion, retrospective legislation.
Further, I really like the suggestion about amendments to the ‘few’ parts that do not work out. presumably that will be those parts that catch you and your mates, not those that hinder your opponents.
This law is so badly drafted no one after several months still has any idea about what is and is not legal. But nome in you world view it is morally ‘good’ so therefore that is alright then.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:11 pm
adamsmith1922
“If you break the law then you have committed an illegal act”
I never disagreed with that. I simply advocate that it not be prosecuted. You’ve just wasted your time by writing a long, irrelevant, amateurish jurisprudence tract. Well done.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:15 pm
“This law is so badly drafted no one after several months still has any idea about what is and is not legal.”
Ok, well we can expect to see hundreds of innocent people being prosecuted for breaches of the Act this year then. Only that won’t happen because the problems with the Act are minor and technical.
May 2nd, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Nome
“For instance, National’s hollow-men money laundering outfits, though legal, weren’t good for our democracy,”
What is bad for democracy Rog, is failure to prosecute clear breaches of the law.
May 2nd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
roger nome said “I never disagreed with that. I simply advocate that it not be prosecuted. You’ve just wasted your time by writing a long, irrelevant, amateurish jurisprudence tract. Well done.”
Amateurish? Long? Irrelelvant? Sheesh roger nome, even by your standards, that is indeed the pot calling the kettle black! And at least adamsmith used his own words, not Wikipedia or Kiwiblogblog links!
May 3rd, 2008 at 11:42 am
The ancient philosophical principle that roger nome and the other Helebanists need to get their head around is that Laws are made against something BECAUSE IT IS WRONG, NOT that something is wrong because there is a law against it…..
May 3rd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Slightly off topic but have Winston 1st and Snakeoil Dunne paid the stolen taxpayer money back yet?
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:37 pm
Laws are made to protect pre existing human rights….thats the only valid and non contradictory source of law.We don’t have rights thanks to the law…we have law thanks to the need to protect our rights…When the law is used to violate rights it becomes invalid and should be fought and removed.
May 3rd, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Double parking is my right but the law prevents me from doing this. I feel violated. Time for protest marches, arms, terrorism etc