Greens let off for late donation return
May 29th, 2008 at 3:08 pm by David FarrarI blogged serveral weeks ago that it appeared the Greens had broken the Electoral Finance Act by not disclosing donations in time.
The Electoral Commission has let them off by accepting their explanation that a temporary administrator was unaware of the requirements for continuous disclosure if aggregated donations from an individual exceed $20,000, and that this was a “reasonable excuse”.
I’m not convinced that having your acting party administrator unaware of the law is a reasonable excuse. Especially from a party that spent months and months campaigning on the need for better donation disclosure laws.
Issues I would have asked if I was the Electoral Commission are whether the Party had provided a written guide to the acting administrator as to his or her duties. It is a standard practice to have a list of duties which include legal obligations. Just saying “Whoops forgot to mention that” isn’t good practice.
The continuous disclosure requirement is well publicised on the Electoral Commission website, and in material provided by the Commission.
Related posts:
- Another late donation return
- Anonymous Donations starting to flow through Electoral Commission
- 2007 Donations Return
- Family Party breaks the EFA
May 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
And ACTs exuse was the dog ate my homework. Thats right the party for fiscal responsibility had none. 4 months to decklare one donation of $16000 because they were short staffed
[DPF: And I said at the time that they also should be prosecuted. It's called consistency - go look the word up]
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:17 pm
Not in the public interest to prosecute. The corrupt manipulators of our electoral system, the Labour Party and the Greens, are the ones who commit the very crimes they accuse everyone else of. Yet, always, they get away with it and their supporters cheer them on.
And no, I do not buy their excuse either. Just like Labour knew at the last election that their pledge card would be counted, so the Greens have no excuse for not complying with a law they supported and worked so hard on.
But keep in mind, this is the same Green Party that started the Exclusive Brethren witch hunt, because somebody dared criticize their policies. They seemed to have a handle on electoral law then.
What has changed?
Oh yes. This move is them breaking the law and seeking to further manipulate the system. That’s okay.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
“In the view of the Electoral Commission the matters outlined by the financial agent in his letter of 13
May 2008 and summarised above constitute a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply on this occasion, and therefore no offence has been committed.”
Officer: Do you know that you were speeding, sir?
Vote:Driver: Yes officer I was speeding.
Officer: Is there any reason for that excessive speed?
Driver: Well my foot was pressed down hard on the accelerator
Officer: Yes well that constitutes a reasonable excuse for failure to comply on this occasion, and therefore no offence has been committed.
May 29th, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Come on Pascal, haven’t you heard of the The Acts Interpretation Amendment Act 2007, which has at its final clause “No law shall apply to the Labour Party or, from time to time as decided by the ninth floor, the Green Party.”
Stupid, corrupt, inept pack of lying bastards.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
ghostwhowalks3, ACT contacted the Electoral Commission before they were found out and asked for an extension. The Greens excuse was: I didn’t know the law. Since when was that an excuse? And that from a party that wants more and more and more laws? There’s only one law they want to abolish and that’s about smoking pot. All other forms of smoking are still forbidden of course. Maybe they should smoke less drugs and spend a bit more time reading up on all the laws they saddled NZ up with.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
GWW – If the dog ate your homework I would expect it to be rather mangy and malnourished.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“I’m not convinced that having your acting party administrator unaware of the law is a reasonable excuse”
I am starting to wonder if any of the leftie utopian liars know how to tell the truth? Only the watermelon greens could offer such a pitiful excuse like this and get away with it. Saint Sue B and her freakshow mob of idiots are a disgrace. Hell these creeps are so dishonest, and it’s little wonder so many kiwis are disillusioned by a corrupt and shambolic government guilty of rort after rort!
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
So the Greens get off with the crime of the century, and democracy takes another massive hit in New Zealand. Well done for your incessant vigilance, keeping us up to date with the most pressing issues of our times DPF. I don’t know what we’d do without you.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
A thread to keep if the Nats make any breaches of the act.
Good old David, the gift that keeps on giving.
[DPF: Sonic also doesn't know what the word consistency means. One has to have even a small amount of reason and principle to understand such concepts.
Note that I have consistently stated National should have been prosecuted for the broadcasting breach in 2005]
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Outrageous! Sheer hypocrisy from Winston First & Greens.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Ignorance of the law is no defence … but “reasonable excuse” is fairly broad. Beyond the fact that it is ironic that the Greens who were leading the charge for transparency in electoral reform (at least that’s what they called it) broke the rules I do not see this as a big deal. Either that or I am getting unnaturally reasonable in my old age.
Hypocrites? Yes. Criminals? Not so sure (or concerned).
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Look it’s the deadly duo a rogered sonic.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Yes roger it is all getting rather tedious isn’t it? DPF should just program the blog to spit out a post each day which says “Oh yes, by the way, the feckless bunch of inept fools who tried to stifle freedom of speech just blew another hole in their foot” and get on with reporting the interesting stuff that doesn’t happen on a daily basis.
I don’t know why these clowns expect us to spend a fortune on their 7 series BMWs. In every other circus I’ve seen, a dozen of them can fit into a Morris Minor.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:03 pm
Roger nome: DPF. I don’t know what we’d do without you.
Perhaps you might have to consider getting a life of your own rather than waiting with baited breath to comment on DPF’s every word? Certainly, you might have to consider going outside once in a while.
Sonic: A thread to keep if the Nats make any breaches of the act.
Good old David, the gift that keeps on giving.
Sonic, I think you can change “if” to when. That’s the point. The Act that you are so fond of is so confusing that anyone can and, inevitably, will breach it – that’s if the Courts can work out what the bloody thing means.
In any event this is hardly a confusing part of the Act. Whilst, hyprocracy aside, I am not particularly concerned about the Greens breach it is a reasonably well known and simple requirement.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Yes GPT and isnt it going to be funny that when David moans about the Nats getting done we can all link to this thread!
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
I keep trying to get excited enough to type something detailed about this, but every time i try, my fingers just get tired. This thread is just one big vacuum of boredom. Better leave before it sucks me in.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Certainly not criminals, this is one offence provision in the EFA that is purely a summary offence.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
roger nome said “This thread is just one big vacuum of boredom”
That’s probably because you, sonic and ghostwhowalks have contibuted around a third of the content rog!
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Yes GPT and isnt it going to be funny that when David moans about the Nats getting done we can all link to this thread!
Sure will, because when that happens we can point to stupidity of the Act and the stupidity of its supporters in a smooth continuation of this thread.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
This excuse certainly wouldn’t be excused if you forgot your rates or IRD returns.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
you know Sonic if and/or when National have a breach of the EFA, you can link back to this thread all you like, though that seems pretty pointless as National fought this stupidity tooth and nail, one of their main reasons being that it was confusing, badly written and unworkable, a breach by National would only confirm that they were right. A breach by the parties that championed it is a different story all together. Whats that’s that word that begins with H?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
If it’s not Labour going “me too” on policy, it’s the likes of nome , sonic and GWW going “them too” whenever the lefties stuff up
Just too funny!
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
i notice that phillipjohn is so public spirited he has now managed to overcome his ennui sufficiently to post 3408 times so far.
Mind you he has been uncharacteristically quiet recently, probably this terms student allowance cheque has been cashed and he’s still drinking it?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Not the same temporary administrator who fell for the complaint about that dangerous chemical di-hydrogen oxide. It is very dangerous to humans if consumed in grossly excessive quantities.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
This isn’t hypocrisy- it is a simple application of the second principle of socialist government- it is not what you know it is who you know.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 7:12 pm
Wodga – able to leap conclusions in a single bound and Chronic – the boy blunder.
Where would Hullen be without you?
Where will you be without her… lets find out.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
If brains were explosives, they woulddn’t have enough to blow their own hats off. It’s a shit excuse. Up there with ‘I thought the deadine was next week.’
Are we meant to accept that this the quality of personnel that one of our main political parties attract? How cutting edge. And they seriously want to have a say in how to run a western democracy.
Another very good reason not to let them anywhere near a defence portfolio – although now Helen has finished with it, I doubt if they’d be even enough explosives left there with which to blow off the aforementioned hat ……
…… mind you, on reflection, after Helen and the Greens have finished with our ‘western democracy’, there might be just enough left of that to meaningfully occupy a party of the calibre exhibited by the Green Party, after all.
So in a way their shit excuse actually does typify the quality of personnel, and level of democratic participation we have been led to expect….
i think in their clumsy way, this is what nome and sonic are inferring….
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 8:07 pm
Has anyone noticed that Murray’s spelling is getting even worse lately?
Must be his Scottish blood.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Oh dear
Looks like common sense prevailed. The right must be so disappointed. They wanted the EFA to be totally unworkable. Instead it looks like it will actually preserve democracy by preventing it from being bought by right wing interests as well as being tolerant of the frailties of human beings.
I have not seen any of those big ugly iwi kiwi billboards up this year. I hear the EBs are not going to interfere seeking to recreate society where men are in charge and women are chattels, where the only religion tolerated is a god faring one and the more old testament the better, where homosexuals and lesbians are somehow inferior. The EFA must be working.
Now if only National would follow Kate Wilkinson’s example and say exactly what they intend to do so that they can be judged properly by the New Zealand people…
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
How can the Greens argue that it’s not a “reasonable excuse” to give a child a flick on their ear to stop them performing a dangerous or unreasonable behaviour, at the same time as they spend who knows how much of our funds to alleviate their own difficulties regarding this particular [perhaps trivial] breach of this particularly stupid law? (Possibly arguably the EFA is even stupider than the anti-smacking law but hard to believe how that would be possible – they seem to have done it though.)
Ms Bradford says: “…they need to accept this is no longer legal.”
Cindy Kiro says: “This should never be taken lightly.”
I agree. Shame you don’t listen to yourselves a bit more, isn’t it?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
Sonic
Vote:It could be like your argument
May 29th, 2008 at 8:57 pm
come on mickeysavege…. you must be able to jam some more threadjacking themes in there for us. work a bit harder eh …
that aside, and back on topic, tell me if you think that National breaches (which will happen… the law was designed to catch all voices of opposition) will enjoy the same discretion. if so why? if not why not?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
getstaffed – this was not an exercise of discretion (as the Labour leaflet was).
This (like the EC decision over National’s environment leaflet handed out earlier this year) was a decision that the Greens had not committed an offence.
The EC doesn’t have the power or a discretion to refer people to the police for behaviour that doesn’t actually amount to an offence. Just as it can’t say “National, we don’t think you committed an offence by handing out that environmental policy discussion document during the regulated period, but we’re going to refer you to the police anyway”, it also can’t say “Greens, we don’t think you committed an offence when you filed this donation return, but we’re going to report you to the police anyway.”
Would you have it any other way?
That said, if you (or DPF) disagree with the EC (or the Chief Electoral Officer) and do think the Greens (or anyone else) has committed an offence, you can refer it to the police yourself.
[DPF: My views on the competence of the Police on these issues is well known.]
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 9:31 pm
MickeySavage:
No, we’re not seeing the same thing you are. Was the EPMU (now prevented from campaigning) a right wing interest?
Oh, now I see. You’re happy because it is limiting groups you don’t agree with.
It’s working because you don’t agree with the EB, and they cannot campaign. But surely if they cannot campaign, there must be a lot of other groups who cannot campaign? Groups that you might agree with?
How much more clear than “we will repeal the EFA” can you be? Or were you just drifting off topic again?
Perhaps I can paraphrase for you:
Vote:– some people I don’t like were impacted
– so it must be good
– even though logically some people I do like must be impacted, they aren’t complaining yet so I’ll ignore that
– Labour good, National bad
May 29th, 2008 at 9:52 pm
Graeme, I must read discretion differently from you.
“In the view of the Electoral Commission the matters outlined by the financial agent in his letter of 13
May 2008 and summarised above constitute a reasonable excuse for the failure to comply on this occasion, and therefore no offence has been committed.”
Reasonable is whose opinion? Someone applies their subjective assessment, some objective facts, their personal prejudice, the direction of the wind and makes a determination of the reasonableness or otherwise of the excuse for failure to comply. I regard that as discretion. I have no problem with discretion so long as it’s fairly applied. However given this Government’s track-record I have no expectation of fairness, particularly where the matter in question has ANYTHING to do with electoral activities.
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Graeme E at 9:09pm – “The EC doesn’t have the power or a discretion to refer people to the police for behaviour that doesn’t actually amount to an offence.”
Vote:Only a lawyer could love a distinction so deformed at birth. Of course the EC has “discretion”. in both cases.
Here, the EC had “discretion” about whether to interpret the Greens’ behaviour as a breach – and must refer to the police if they decide yes. In the other case, there may be a clear breach and the EC then has discretion about whether to refer to the police.
Those two scenarios are logically and functionally identical (unless the EC has one of those rare lawyers who don’t tell you what they think you’re paying to hear).
May 29th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
PaulL
To paraparaphrase,
- the Greens technically did not comply but were not punished for human frailty
Vote:- this means that common sense is prevailing
- I like it that National is not able to spend parliamentary services money (taxpayers money) just before the election period trying to persuade the gullible and senseless and I am glad that the EBs are not able to exercise very expensive speech (as opposed to free speech) to try and distort our democracy
- Labour good, Greens good, National I just wish that they would actually say what they will do if elected so that my worst fears can be confirmed and Kiwis can make an informed decision
May 29th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
……………..and now for something completely different.
DPF and his weekend hobby
http://clintheine.blogspot.com/2008/05/farrar-on-letterman.html
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 10:35 pm
Yep, you’re a fool. Thought so.
BTW, National didn’t spend parliamentary services money on the billboards, and Labour’s new legislation was aimed at allowing them to spend more taxpayer money on adverts than the old legislation did. Remember the retrospective validation of the theft of our money for the pledge cards?
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Surely better to get their warnings and incompetence out of the way now then? Let them stuff up an investigation into an 8-day-late overdue donation return and have them eviscerated now so that their investigation of corrupt practices like overspending will be half-way decent…
[DPF: Your premise is flawed that complaining about a donation return being late will result in any change to how they investigate more serious complaints. Plus the issue is not about getting a $200 fine for the Greens. It is about (for me) the hypocrisy of voting for a complex stupid law and then getting let off with an excuse of ignorance of the same law. ]
Vote:May 29th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
Not quite. If they’d decided it was a breach (i.e. that there was no reasonable excuse), then the question of exercising their discretion not to report the matter to police would have arisen.
Well, I like to think during my brief time there earlier in the year that I was such a lawyer.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 10:52 am
Sorry to disappoint the usual suspects (Ghostiewholies, Sonic, Nome) but I’m too busy laughing at the Greens to be particularly outraged. From ignorantia juris non excusat to “it’s so hard to get good help, nowadays” in a single bound! Instead of trying to crowbar Russell Norman into Parliament, they should send him to head office to tidy up the paperwork.
I sure don’t imagine the ‘poorly briefed temp’ defence is going to be winning much sympathy from that quarter if corporates are in the gun for alleged tax evasion, short-changing employees, resource consent breeches, or failing to properly document workplace health and safety incidents.
The only party in this mess I feel any sympathy for is the Electoral Commission trying to digest the proverbial dog’s dinner.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Paul: Remember the retrospective validation of the theft of our money for the pledge cards?
Of course he doesn’t. Because to his mind that is for a good cause. Steal, lie, cheat. It doesn’t matter as long as it is in support of socialism.
Vote:May 30th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Responding to “(unless the EC has one of those rare lawyers who don’t tell you what they think you’re paying to hear)…”
Graeme said: “Well, I like to think during my brief time there earlier in the year that I was such a lawyer.
A pity they didn’t stick to hiring objective legal minds like yours, then, rather than falling back on the Crown Law Office’s incompetent lickspittle advice over whether 3rd party exclusions apply to legal vs natural persons!
Vote: