The decision in the EPMU case
The Judge was Justice MacKenzie. The full judgement is here Here are some key extracts:
[18] Because there is no legal impossibility involved in the proposition that an artificial person might be involved in the administration of the affairs of a party, to read the word “person” in s 13(2)(f) as limited to natural persons would in effect create two categories of persons involved in the administration of the affairs of a party:
(a) Natural persons ,who are ineligible to be listed as a third party; and
(b) Artificial persons, who are eligible to be listed as a third party.
Exactly. It would create an illogical distinction. If a “person” is capable of being involved in the administration of a political party, the ineligibility criteria must apply to them, regardless of the type of person (natural vs legal).
[21] Second, in the absence of such a legal prohibition, the question of whether a particular person is involved in the administration of the affairs of the company is a question of fact. The scheme of the Act is such that the determination of that question of fact is a matter for the Commission. Under s 17(1)(c) the Commission must refuse an application if it is not satisfied that the applicant is eligible to be listed. To interpret s 13(2)(f) as not applying as a matter of law to artificial persons, by adopting a narrow meaning of the word “person” from its context in the wider phrase, would be to pre-empt the very question which the Commission is required to address.
This is why I am surprised the Electoral Commission followed the Crown Law advice, as doing so actually meant the Commission would not be as effective in doing its job in making sure only eligible persons can register as third parties. To be fair to the Electoral Commission, they did say in their affidavit something along the lines of having some reservations about the advice, but by consensus decided to accept it.
Crown Law now have the dubious distinction of having been patently wrong by saying the original EFB did not breach the Bill of Rights and with their definition of “person”.
[22] Third, I can discern no reason, derived from the purposes of the Act, which would justify exclusion, from the category of persons created by s 13(2)(f), of an artificial person involved in the administration of the affairs of a party, as distinct from a natural person who is so involved. The clear purpose of s 13(2)(f) is to ensure a degree of separation between persons involved in the administration of political parties, on the one hand, and third parties, on the other. That purpose is best achieved by excluding from eligibility all persons involved in the administration of a political party, not merely a subset of such persons.
This goes right to the heart of the case – what interpretation best meets the overall purpose of the Act.
[27] For these reasons I conclude that, on its proper interpretation, the word “person” in s 13(2)(f) bears the meaning given to it by s 29 of the Interpretation Act 1999.
I had had so many lawyers tell me that this must be the case, I would have been very surprised if the case had gone the other way.
[29] For these reasons, I consider that the Union does potentially fall within the scope of s 13(2)(f) of the EFA and that the question of whether it does so must be determined by the Commission before it can be listed as a third party.
As previously stated, this does not mean the EPMU is ineligible. It means the Electoral Commission must now determine if its opinion that EPMU is involved in the administration of the Labour Party. I am of course of the view that there is an overwhelming case that they are involved, and hence ineligible.
If they fail to be registered they can still spend their money campaigning. They just need Mike Smith’s permission and for their spending to count as part of the cap for Labour – the party they have voluntarily joined and are involved in.
[34] The extent of enquiry which the Commission may make, and the processes which it may undertake, to determine whether, in particular, s 17(1)(c) is met, based on the application made under s 15(3), is not specified in the Act. It is a matter for the Commission. The Commission has power, under s 6(2)(aa) of the Electoral Act 1993 “to make such enquiries as the Commission thinks necessary for the proper discharge of its functions”. I do not consider that it is appropriate for this Court to direct the Commission as to how it should go about the performance of its functions, or how it should conduct its enquires.
This is where the EPMU counter-claim is turned down. The Electoral Commission I am sure will be pleased they retain discretion as to whether to allow members of the public, like myself, to offer an opinion on matters before them.
[35] There will be a declaration that word “person” in s 13(2)(f) of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 has the meaning given to it by s 29 of the Interpretation Act 1999.
I doubt there will be an appeal. I can probably now reveal that the legal team were so confident of victory that they were talking of going to the Supreme Court if necessary. In fact I suspect they may even be a bit disappointed they won, as it means no appeal work 
Labour now have to face the possibility that the law they rammed through Parliament may end up making their largest ally the biggest victim.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Sometimes the law is an ass. Sometimes it’s just written by them.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Another great victory for free speech eh David
Who you going to try and muzzle next?
[DPF: Actually it was the law the EPMU supported which will muzzle them, if they are muzzled. Guess they made a bad call eh.
As for next, I like the idea of taking on God
]
May 21st, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Ah, ironic Sonic strikes again.
Congratulations David, well done. Nice to see that those who seek to restrict our speech have instead been hoisted by thier own petard!
May 21st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
sonic, don’t be such a dick. the ‘free speech is the victim’ line is truly pathetic. and you know it.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
” the ‘free speech is the victim’ line is truly pathetic.”
Did you mention that to David when he was hoisting banners all over the place pushing exactly that line?
Thought not.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:47 pm
Who you going to try and muzzle next?
Whoever tries to break the law.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Seems as if Annette King’s beloved ‘Law of common sense’ may have kicked in at last.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
sonic – I have yet to see either you or your mate rogernome chastise Labour for passing a law that allows for this to occur. What is the real travesty here? That Labour passed a terrible law that restricts freedom of speech, despite warnings, or that people seek to have the law clarified and enforced? Do you get upset when the Police enforce laws? If you do I suggest that your anger is misplaced.
Please address this rather than just harp on about people like DPF, who raised these concerns well before the law was passed.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
If there is such a thing as karma there could be no better example then Liarbore and their beloved EFA, what goes around comes around.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
sonic, we’re talking about the absolute dog-of-a-law being correctly applied. remember? the law you barracked for. it was the one you told us protected freedom of speech. do try to keep up laddie.
May 21st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Sonic
I struggle to follow your reasoning, to give it a generous name.
DPF and others run a campaign claiming the Electoral Finance Act will limit free speech.
Sonic criticises DPF.
The EPMU is at risk of having their electioneering restricted by the Electoral Finance Act.
Sonic criticises DPF.
I know it is hard to admit being wrong, but on the EFA, you were wrong. There HAVE been unintended consequences. It HAS made a wide range of groups think carefully before embarking on any campaign that might have political overtones. It HAS disrupted normal communications between MPs of all parties and their constituents, as everyone tries to figure out how to classify mail-drops and newsletters.
The problem is with the Act, not with those who have pointed out all along that the Act was ill-conceived and poorly written.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Sonic – If you don’t eat your meat, you can’t have any pudding! How can you have any pudding if you don’t eat your meat ?!. You ! Yes you, behind the bike shed, stand still laddie !
May 21st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Sonic … just four words but I will say them slowly you so even you can understand…
y o u r l a w o l d s o n
y o u r l a w o l d s o n
y o u r l a w o l d s o n
y o u r l a w o l d s o n
May 21st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
FOOLS!!!!
The law of common sense is clear! This law is to supress the free speech of all who dare oppose Dear Leader! Not her psycophantic lickspittles.
There yar McChronic, don’t say I never stick up for you.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
One to remember the next time you guys try and cover up a tawdry, partisan campaign with high sounding language about freedom.
And that goes for all of you.
xxx
S
May 21st, 2008 at 4:04 pm
Power corrupts Sonic and you and your ilk clearly have been in power too long
May 21st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Oh and as an aside, Murray just gets more witty and relevant by the day eh readers!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Didums.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Sonic,
Don’t feel bad, now that the law you and your friends praised to the heavens all the way through has proven useful in silencing the EPMU it is quite likely the Business Roundtable is going to be sending you a gift basket. In that basket there will be a large slice of crow – happy eating.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Anyone know if Trevs got the Mallardmobile back from the signwriters yet?
May 21st, 2008 at 4:12 pm
Yes, its says “will work for food”.
I suspect its a lie though.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Sonic Supports Law Silencing EPMU
May 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
The Standard anon bloggers also supported the law silencing the EPMU. Muppets!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Congrats. This is a good victory and should be well celebrated!
May 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Gloat away guys, every dog has it’s day.
Tiocfaidh ar la
xxx
S
May 21st, 2008 at 4:22 pm
And yours is over, piss off to Nothern Ireland if you want to mutter dark threats in Gaelic.
Go on run away back home you snotty little caledonian git, you’re over.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Sound reasoning but actually unlikely to make much difference.
DPF: “If they [EPMU] fail to be registered they can still spend their money campaigning. They just need Mike Smith’s permission and for their spending to count as part of the cap for Labour – the party they have voluntarily joined and are involved in.”
This isn’t the only way they could campaign. Some of their members could incorporate “EPMU campaign 2008”. This would be a legal person not involved in the administration of the affairs of the Labour Party, assuming that the Union itself found to be so.
It will be fascinating to see what position the Electoral Commission takes regarding unions affiliated to the Labour Party: whether or no the are involved in the administration of the affairs of the Party. It will take some gymnastics to find that they are not.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Absolutely fantastic. Schadenfraude reigns supreme.
nice to see chronic and eger moron playing tag on the two threads about this topic. What a week for the ninth floor;
Major donor (in a we give you cash and you give it back) muzzled by it’s own legislation.
Harry Clark clutching her chest and screeching et tu brutus at phill goff .
More job losses (nearly 2000 this month).
IMF beseeching the reserve bank to leave interest rates alone because of govt spending.
And Bomber Bradbury becomes a pin up boy for the VRWC with his Alt TV channnel.
And David Farrar becomes a role model for all fortyish slightly nerdy men (yup me included) in NZ.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Ah Don Pryde (EPMU prez) as Labour’s Clutha-Southland candidate alone would require the sort of gymnastics Nadia Comaneci was famous for.
As for every dog has it’s day, Helen & co are rapidly running out of metaphorical lampposts to piss on.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:28 pm
From the previous thread:
DPF:
“Discrediting a law helps get rid of it.”
I was thinking the same thing. The only thing is, the law, at its core is solid. It only needs some small technical adjustments for it to properly reflect its laudable intentions (i.e. transparency of the democratic process and a democratisaton of election spending). You want to throw the baby out with the bathwater – because you don’t like the intensions of the Act.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
muzzle sonic? Your friends wrote the law. Your friends shut down a website. Who is limiting free speech here? Get real, lefties live to shut down free speech.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:33 pm
The law is shit.
Deal with that concept will you.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“Labour now have to face the possibility that the law they rammed through Parliament ”
Thye passed it with around a majority of 55%. As I remember the National Party rammed many laws through between 1993 and 1996 with a minority of 35%.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Roger
Also from the previous thread
“Roger
You assured us all that the EF Bill was all perfectly in order when it was first unveiled.
As more and more flaws were exposed, you claimed that a few minor adjustments by Select Committee were all that was needed.
When the Select Committee made sweeping changes, you assured us that the changes were all good and necessary, and EFA would not infringe on anyone’s freedom of speech.
So please excuse us for taking your latest claim about ‘technical adjustments’ with a grain or two of salt.
You have spent the past year talking up this law – stop whining and live with the consequences.”
May 21st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
sonic (1460) Add karma Subtract karma –2 Says:
May 21st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Gloat away guys, every dog has it’s day.
Tiocfaidh ar la
xxx
Careful there sonic, when you start frothing and snarling as you have on this thread, you are in danger of being classified as rabid. Having already self-described as a dog, the outcome could prove fatal.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:46 pm
Can’t understand why the left are getting all shirty – some members of each Union affiliated to the Labour Party simply need to incorporate a separate entity for the purposes the EFA – indeed they could incorporate a couple of such organisations.
Like all regulatory compliance issues – yes life is simply made more complex (and therefore morely costly) but it isn’t insurmountable in this case.
What would be more interesting is if DPF did one of his special little does it need an authorisation statement or not tests on the latest greenpeace campaign on climate change. They may have also breached the 12k.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
“As for next, I like the idea of taking on God
”
Try it and see that there is a God.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Because the law wasn’t meant to apply to them Chris. Its only meant to silence the right.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
You might find David that people “frothing and snarling” tend not to end a post with kisses.
I leave that sort of stuff to you chaps (you are so much better at it, well apart from Murray and he tries hard poor dear)
May 21st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
bobux:
“You assured us all that the EF Bill was all perfectly in order when it was first unveiled.”
Not true – I actually said that I opposed the law as it stood. I did however understand that the worst aspects of the law would be eliminated in SC, and they were.
After SC the law was, on balance, more democratic than the previous law, so I supported it.
This isn’t to say the law is perfect though. Very few new laws that aren’t simply duplicates of overseas legislation are. But as I said – there’s no point in throwing the baby out with the bath water (as the National Party intends to if it gets to form a government after the next election). The law can be refined.
As it stands I think the implication of this ruling is interesting. There are no doubt many members of the EPMU that aren’t members of the Labour Party – so I don’t see why they should be banned from using that organisation for electioneering, because some of its members and officials belong to the Labour Party. The intention of the law is to stop parties extending their election spending cap by campaigning on a non-party basis. And clearly the EPMU and the Labour Party are two very distinct organisations. So I don’t think the purposes of the law would be served by stopping them from campaigning.
DPF may have succeed in the first leg of his attempt to silence thousands of people involved in a democratic organisation, but I don’t think the second leg of his “crusade for free speech” is going to be quite so successful.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
I’m not a towering hypocrite, I don’t like you. I find you repugnant and treat you accordingly.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Which way are you going to slice your cake and eat it too gnome. Get the fence post out of your ass and make a call. for or against.
Pick one not based on sneering at anything DPF presents.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Oh Murray you have broken my heart!
I must say you must have plenty of hatred in you to waste it on someone you have never even met.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
A ‘repugnant’ roger with a hypocritical smile. I should avoid conflict with such a silly nome.As for sonic the chronic,well say no more,say no more Peter.
May 21st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Dear Muzza,
Please do remember what you’ve been told about the blood pressure
The BMI currently places you in the “at risk”category no?
May 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Can’t understand why the left are getting all shirty – some members of each Union affiliated to the Labour Party simply need to incorporate a separate entity for the purposes the EFA – indeed they could incorporate a couple of such organisations.
Like all regulatory compliance issues – yes life is simply made more complex (and therefore morely costly) but it isn’t insurmountable in this case.
They’ll have no access to the EPMU war chests, where will the money come from?
May 21st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
My god its the tag team of stupidity… what will I do. One more asshole and it will be a real three ring circus.
Your brain places you in “at moronic” category no?
I don’t hate you chronic.
I don’t hate bacteria either. I just dose it.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Roll up folks it’s the circus clowns from Liarbour, chronic sonic and rogered nome.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Bitchslaps for all.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Diddums said the people,then the Liarbour circus went broke and all the clowns became unemployed.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
save your kisses for someone who respects you sonic.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Damn, its after 5 the troll circus is off the clock.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Has there previously ever been such self-seving legislation passed by any NZ Parliament?
Has there previously ever been legislation fail legal examination so soon after Vice Regal endorsement in NZ?
May 21st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
But Muzza – why the nastiness? I was just looking out for your health. Some people can be so ungrateful.
So, might I also suggest that you focus on the thread topic? It might be a way for you to stop yourself getting all growly and worked up with those “bitch slaps”. Come on, we know through how tough you talk over the internet that you’re a big hard man, not at all like flailing, petulant princess. So what do you say? Give us your concerted opinion seeing as your brain clearly places you in the real smart category…
May 21st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Because you’re an “asshole”. Look it up.
You’ve never focused on anything other than smearing so bite me.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
“Has there previously ever been such self-seving legislation passed by any NZ Parliament?”
Im getting old and my brain is getting tired but I think I recall “Free air travel for life” and “Gold plated pension” and “Huge pay rises” or something legislation. Usually passed in the dead of night just before Parliamentary Hols were taken. Maybe Im just confused. But I must grant you the EFA is right up there with the worst.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Roger,
There are no doubt many members of the EPMU that aren’t members of the Labour Party – so I don’t see why they should be banned from using that organisation for electioneering, because some of its members and officials belong to the Labour Party.
Because the EPMU is clearly a fully paid up affliate of the Labour party, they cannot use the funds of the EPMU (Labour Party member) to campaign. They are of course quite welcome to use their own money.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Gnome
A few technical ammendments – with over 500 pre act changes how many more 5000+.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:18 pm
This is just too delicious, the law that the Labour Party and its flunkies passed into law to muzzle their opponents has ended up muzzling their allies.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Muzza – my 4:48 post shows that you might be slipping below the “real smart” category, that I originally thought your brain warranted.
Truth is I don’t know that I’ve ever seen you post a thought-out comment on the thread topic. I’ve seen you bitch and flail like a precious prima donna a hell of a lot though.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:21 pm
I’m only here to kick trolls.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:22 pm
“And clearly the EPMU and the Labour Party are two very distinct organisations.”
But National and Exclusive Brethren are joined at the hip, right?
“DPF may have succeed in the first leg of his attempt to silence thousands of people involved in a democratic organisation…”
What do you mean, Nome? The EPMU is still able to say whatever they like; they are still able to campaign for Labour. This just means that they cant do this parallel campaigning without having the costs of doing so deducted from Labours campaign spending.
Arent you supposed to be against parallel campaigning? But seriously…
Your only interest in free speech and democracy is using one as an excuse to restrict the other.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:24 pm
“Your only interest in free speech and democracy is using one as an excuse to restrict the other.”
Damn, thats a good line, IIDSSM. Did I steal that from anyone?
May 21st, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“A few technical ammendments – with over 500 pre act changes how many more 5000+.”
+ Incinerator + Little Lucifer + Match. Optional–marshmallows to toast over the flames.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:33 pm
“But National and Exclusive Brethren are joined at the hip, right?”
What?
“The EPMU is still able to say whatever they like”
Not if their spending comes under the Labour Party. They are, for all intents and purposes campaigning as part of the Labour party then, not as the EPMU.
“Arent you supposed to be against parallel campaigning”
When it involves $600,000 worth of dishonest, secretive campaigning. Yes.
One point. The EPMU’s campaigns have historically focused on worker’s rights, where as Labour’s campaigns have a much broader focus. This illustrates the point that they’re two distinct entities with distinct interests and purposes. This is where I agree with the Standard: the EFA was never intended to exclude democratic organisations such as the EPMU from campaigning. That’s why I doubt that Farrar’s anti-free-speech crusade against the 50,000 EPMU members will be successful. It would run contrary to the purposes of the Act.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Muza:
“I’m only here to kick trolls.”
Interesting, so you freely admit that every post you make deserves 10 demerit points for posting off topic? Clever boy aren’t you?
May 21st, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Shit Sonic, getting your arse kicked again tonight.
“You might find David that people “frothing and snarling” tend not to end a post with kisses.”
Anyone notice how when Sonic feels beaten he ends his posts with kisses?
Walk away loser, you’re completely out of your league
Roger; You should really keep that quiet as if correct your response is equally off post (and you only have 20 left)
doh
May 21st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
Did I just hear Andrew Little saying that on LabRad that they would forget about registering as a 3rd party?
May 21st, 2008 at 5:42 pm
unaha-closp
You are wrong to suggest that a union affiliated to the Labour Party cannot donate to a registered third party – there is no restriction on their use of of their funds because of the affiliated status.
The EPMU can solicit donations from its membership on behalf of any incorporated entity established for the purposes of third party registration and donate to such an entity as well. Such an entity or entities could solicit donations from other unions who are not affiliated and are registered as a third party themselves and from members of the public.
As I said I cannot see what the left are getting all upset about assuming the Electoral Commission finds that affiliated unions are involved in the administration of the affairs of the Labour Party.
The only practical consequence of the decision is to make registered third party organisation loosely connected with affiliated unions i.e. one step removed from the Union itself – this probably isn’t a bad thing for transparency and effective campaign purposes.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Roger,
“There are no doubt many members of the EPMU that aren’t members of the Labour Party”
Actually as I understood it, all members of the EPMU were by extention automatically members of the labour party.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
“such as the EPMU from campaigning. That’s why I doubt that Farrar’s anti-free-speech crusade against the 50,000 EPMU members will be successful. It would run contrary to the purposes of the Act.”
Your kidding us here nome I know NZ lags well behind the rest of the developed world in educational standards, especially since Helen took over, but 50,000 retards!!!! Never I just don’t believe it.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Johnboy said
“……….but I think I recall “Free air travel for life” and “Gold plated pension” and “Huge pay rises” or something legislation. Usually passed in the dead of night just before Parliamentary Hols were taken. Maybe Im just confused. But I must grant you the EFA is right up there with the worst.”
Yes, indeed. Quite so.
A little different in that Parliamentarians self-served universally for financial recompense. Unpopular with taxpayers.
The EFA was passed to politically disadvantage those whose views differ from those of the Government. Untenable at law.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
One point. The EPMU’s campaigns have historically focused on worker’s rights, where as Labour’s campaigns have a much broader focus. This illustrates the point that they’re two distinct entities with distinct interests and purposes.
Which is only totally contradicted by the EPMU’s decision to affiliate to the Labour Party.
This is where I agree with the Standard: the EFA was never intended to exclude democratic organisations such as the EPMU from campaigning.
Perhaps next time the Labour Party might find it useful to actually write a law in a way that reflects the laws intentions. However since the EFA as it stands appears to say otherwise…
May 21st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
unaha-closp
That really was funny – socialists use their own money to achieve their objectives… I’ll be laughing for a few days over that one.
This is sooo funny, look at all the lefties who sung the praise of Labour and the EFA, defended the partisan approach and defended it’s passing under urgency – now they blame DPF & National.
WTF is wrong with these people – they reep what they sow !
May 21st, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“Interesting, so you freely admit that every post you make deserves 10 demerit points for posting off topic?”
That post is not on topic dipshit.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Actually as I understood it, all members of the EPMU were by extention automatically members of the labour party.
shouldn’t that read ‘by extortion’?
May 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
A very learned High Court judge disagrees with you! The EPMU can do what other disappointed litigants do: appeal.
And where’s Burt when you need him! So, PhillipJohn, are you saying that Labour will retrospectively change the purposes of the Act so that an approved list of “democratic organisations” (including the EPMU but not the NZBR) can campaign?
May 21st, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Quite right Gerry it was bad enough that they screwed us with their perk laws but the EFA is trying to stop us bleating about being screwed. Definitely the worst legislation ever since Kim Il Jong passed the “Call me dear leader act”.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:55 pm
The Solicitor-General David Collins QC holds office as an official of government and is also the Chief Executive of the Crown Law Office. Subject only to the Attorney-General Hon Michael Cullen, the Solicitor-General is the government’s chief legal adviser and advocate in the courts. In practice, the Solicitor-General provides advice directly to Ministers, departments and agencies of government and will appear as Senior Counsel for government interests in litigation and in particular appellate court matters. A key responsibility is to advise the government on constitutional questions.
So the EFB fiasco can be directly laid at the doors of Crown Law, who made a boo-boo in drawing up the EFB.
The fact that the EFB ever appeared and made its way into the Statute Books can be attributed to the Office of the Commissioner of Police, who approved the Police report referred to them, (which established prima facie evidence of breaches of the Electoral Act) found to have occurred during the police investigation into the allegations of breaches of the Electoral Act, brought by the Electoral Committee. Crown Law also reviewed the report. Their report never published)
Very,very strange fact is that the Solicitor-General at the time, Terence Arnold, CEO Crown Law, included an 11 page report finding unlawful use of taxpayer’s money into Auditor-General Dennis Brady’s report. This Report was presented in the House to the Speaker Hon Margaret Wilson on 6 October 2006.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:57 pm
The Double Standard:
“Did I just hear Andrew Little saying that on LabRad that they would forget about registering as a 3rd party”
Smart move the EPMU for they will likely get a refusal by the Electoral Commission to register them – members associated with them simply need to set up a PAC.
May 21st, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Chris Diack,
Thank you and good reasoning.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Can you really be that dumb Roger. The obvious point here is that you are claiming that the EPMU is clearly separate from Labour, despite affiliating to them and co-ordinating their campaign with them. But you think their spending should be separate. But with the EB, who had a handful of meetings with National, apparently it is a clear case of morally wrong parallel campaigning. Can you not see the dissonance there?
Weren’t you telling me that the limits don’t restrict free speech, they just restrict expensive speech? You’re reversing your previous arguments purely because of the target. DPF has a very clear rationale and reason for what he is doing. He is clear that he would prefer that the EPMU could campaign. As should other groups in similar situations (such as the EB). But since the law says the EB cannot, it also says that the EPMU cannot. You are being inconsistent, he is not.
Is it the amount that offends you, or your belief that it was dishonest, or your belief that it was secret?
The unions spend more than $600K each election, so I guess it cannot be the amount.
The EB weren’t dishonest – they quoted Green policy. The unions are frequently dishonest in their campaigns, obscuring or misleading in their campaigns, and often lying about National party policies (remember the infamous letter claiming National were going to do something aruther to pensioners?). So can’t be the dishonest bit – they weren’t and anyway you seem to support dishonesty.
And as for secret, they put their names on the bottom of every pamphlet but one. The only objection I have ever heard is that they didn’t declare their religion on the pamphlet as well. Surely that isn’t your objection? ‘Cause I don’t see religion declared on all that many election pamphlets.
So, let me put some words in your mouth. You object to the EB’s campaign because you don’t like their religion. You object to their campaign because it was anti Labour and Greens. In short, Labour good, National bad. For the life of me, I don’t know why you don’t just post that on the top of every thread and be done with it. It would save us all some time.
Actually, it was intended to prevent organisations that were closely linked to a political party from parallel campaigning, thereby effectively increase that political party’s campaign limit. Explain again why that wasn’t intended to catch the EPMU? Let me question your exact words again. Is the EPMU different because they are democratic? So if the group of five EB businessmen had gotten together and had a vote on whether to run their campaign, you’d then be good about it? Or is this more Labour good, National bad?
Care to put your money where your mouth is? How sure are you?
For the record, Farrar’s crusade is for the same law to be applied to everyone. His crusade isn’t anti-free speech, the law is. If the law is found not to apply, then I’m pretty sure the EB will be off the hook too – they can go ahead and campaign just like last time.
And as noted above, restricting the EPMU would be entirely consistent with the purposes of the ACT.
Let me know the size of the bet, I’m pretty sure I have you covered.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“The EPMU’s campaigns have historically focused on worker’s rights, where as Labour’s campaigns have a much broader focus.”
Labour may have a broader focus but they will also deal with specific issues; the economy, trade, immigration, education, health etc.
Previously they wouldnt have had to worry about campaining specifically on “workers rights” issues because they had the EPMU to do that. Labour could spend the rest of the money on other things.
They are not distinct. The interests of the EPMU are simply a subset of the interests of the Labour party.
By your reckoning National would be able to create a ‘democratic’, single-issue organisation (which has voting rights within National and whose members are automatically National members) and still have them considered distinct because they dont campaign on the broad range of issues the official National Party does.
“This is where I agree with the Standard: the EFA was never intended to exclude the EPMU from campaigning.”
FYP, Nome. I removed “democratic organisations such as” because it is irrelevant to the intention of the Act. A third party can be undemocratic. But it shows the depth of your argument. How can you type with two fingers in your ears and your head up your arse?
Hey, the Act was never intended to exclude huge donations from Owen Glen to the Labour Party, but they caught that little blunder quickly enough.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
Chris Diack,
Presumably this means that each National Party member can do the same and direct their funds to third party(s) campaigning?
May 21st, 2008 at 6:11 pm
“But with the EB, who had a handful of meetings with National, apparently it is a clear case of morally wrong parallel campaigning:
Can you really be that dumb Paul. In the same post I said When it involves $600,000 worth of dishonest, secretive campaigning. Yes.. That’s the difference between the EB and the EPMU.
“”The unions spend more than $600K each election, so I guess it cannot be the amount.”
The unions are separate entities representing 300,000 members. The EB board was one entity representing about 5,000 members.
Also – I’d love to see the source for your claim.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:13 pm
And yet the demerrits and karma tell a different story. Well you must be used to reality not beuing the way you wanted to shape it to be.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:24 pm
“The unions are separate entities representing 300,000 members. ”
Hell nome it is much worse than I thought under Labour. 300,000 that can’t think for themselves now. Time we had a new government that raised our educational standards back into the top half of the OECD.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
unaha-closp:
“Presumably this means that each National Party member can do the same and direct their funds to third party(s) campaigning?
Of course. Party members can also form incorporated societies to seek and gain registered third party status – this is probably likely given that National and Labour are already hitting the NZ$2.4 million spending cap.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:31 pm
“The unions are separate entities representing 300,000 members. The EB board was one entity representing about 5,000 members.”
So, the Church of Scientology has 8 million members. How much can they spend?
“it involves $600,000 worth of dishonest, secretive campaigning.”
It was so secretive there was a real lack of decent evidence. Now THATS secret.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Nome when the Unions start positively promoting something National does and stand down from the ruling Labour council then you might have some small amount of credibility.
Until then your pissing into a head wind.
May 21st, 2008 at 6:45 pm
PaulL
Very well said. A good “fisking” exposing the hypocrisy which exists.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Johnboy,
will national be taking away the expectations of school leavers once again and stopping apprenticeships. That was such a good move eh.
I love the irony that the anti EFA people have successfully silenced people. The law isn’t anti free speech. Stopping unions from talking is.
BTW David, someone needs to get onto Wiki and get their brag about the decision.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:21 pm
“The Electoral Finance Bill does not diminish ‘free’ speech,” Professor Davis wrote in the Weekend Herald.
“It restricts speech that is ‘purchased’ through advertising – and only in an environment that is electorally sensitive.
“I would be concerned if ‘free’ speech was being constrained but limits on the rights to ‘purchase’ speech are justified to protect our democracy from money politics, although I can see it might hurt the Herald’s bottom line.”
May 21st, 2008 at 7:26 pm
Paul your lot has been screwed by the law that they brought in.
Easy solution. Get Labour to repeal the EFA then we can all be winners including the EPMU and us!
May 21st, 2008 at 7:28 pm
PaulL – excellent stuff at 6:03 pm. Thanks.
May 21st, 2008 at 7:39 pm
“The law isn’t anti free speech. Stopping unions from talking is.”
Spectacular dumb-fuckery from Paul here.
Hey, genius, the law is stopping the unions from talking!*
Or are you saying that laws shouldnt apply to unions? It wouldnt surprise me if you were.
*It isnt really. It is just going to force Labour to declare the funding of a campaign they got for free in previous elections. Someone call Jimmy Carter, our democracah is under attack!
May 21st, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Paul said:
Really, ask the EPMU if they agree with you now.
Face facts, Labour are stuffed and are going to get a swift kick up the arse on election day and soon after so will the EFA. Get used to the idea.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:04 pm
I love it when kiwis use the word “asshole” unironically! Some sort of Schwarzenegger complex?
May 21st, 2008 at 8:15 pm
A great quote from Paul’s mates at the low standard.
“There is going to be a lot of gloating from the right over this, but let’s be clear. Crown Law advice was that the EPMU was not a person and it’s clear as day that the EFA was never intended to exclude democratic organisations such as the EPMU from campaigning. This is a weak point of the law that has failed under heavy (and expensive) legal attack by National and it needs to be fixed.”
So in summary Labour fucked up big time because they meant to screw the free speech of every other interest group in the country, but not their buddies the Unions.
If your too stupid to even be able to deliberating legislate a electoral avantage and then cancel out your mates then you shouldn’t be in Govt.
May 21st, 2008 at 8:51 pm
You deserve a gong for your work on the EFA David. I disagree with you on many things particularly your tendency to appease the Labour Party but on this you have been consistent, well briefed and right on point.
May 21st, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Clark’s EB = Dubya’s WMDs.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Indeed. I know of one that’s had 9 years… and it’s about to politically neutered.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
will national be taking away the expectations of school leavers once again and stopping apprenticeships. That was such a good move eh.
Haven’t seen that policy anywhere, dumbo. Making them stay at school until they’re 18 is such a brilliant idea though – unless you’re a kid who doesn’t want to be at school (or a teacher). Luckily it’ll never see the light of day.
Speaking of good moves, why don’t you fuck off?
May 21st, 2008 at 10:35 pm
In regard to this court ruling the expression “Hoisted from their own petard” springs to mind. Injured by the very device they intended to use to injure others. To mark this remarkable legal and political event perhaps its time to replace this old expression which is very outdated and replace it with something more up to date using the words EFA, Clark, EPMU and/or Labour.
As an example instead of: He’s been hoisted by his own petard
He’s EFAed himself
He’s Clarked himself
He’s Laboured himself
He’s EPMUed himself
This could be Helen Clark and this governments great lasting contribution to New Zealand Slang and the English Language.
May 21st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
Just quickly in response to the utter BS (which I cannot let pass) about National and apprenticeships:
The facts are these. Apprenticeship numbers were reasonably stable for the decade from 1978 – 1988 at between 20,000 – 30,000 a year. From 1988 – 1992 numbers declined progressively to well under 20,000 a year.
In 1992, the National Government passed the new Industry Training Act that has remained the basis of our industry training for the past 15 years.
From a low of under 20,000 in 1992, by 1999 the number had increased to over 40,000 and continued to climb. National’s Industry Training Act 1992 has been spectacularly successful.
Source: Green, Nicholas. (2003) , A brief History of Industry Training 1989-2002. Industry Training Federation and Tertiary Education Commission. Wellington.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Sonic, Nome and the other belated defenders of free speech here’s an extract from the decison:
The interpretation contended for by the Union, would place greater limits on the freedom of expression of natural persons than of artificial persons.
Now remember that this rubbish legislation is something that the EMPU, amonst others, supported and now they want(ed) special protection from the “limits of freedom of expression” – limits they themselves seek to impose on individuals.
Petard. Hoist. Insert cliche here.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:26 pm
Richard, not sure why you bother. We already knew that the trolls were lying.
May 21st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
Despite the fact I prefer Labour over National, I am quite pleased with the results of this court case.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 am
nome, apologies. In the other thread on this topic (“Victory in court”) I mistakenly congratulated you on having the lowest karma score I had seen. In fact, however, that honour now belongs to sonic.
Paul (1013) May 21st, 2008 at 7:17 pm, continues on this thread (as on “Victory in court”) to attempt to divert attention from the actual facts, by referring to his speculation about what National might do in the arena of employment law.
This misses the point. We are discussing a High Court judgment regarding the legal effect of an Act that was drafted for and passed by this present Labour Administration. Any chilling effect on the rights of citizens to freely express themselves has nothing whatsoever to do with the Opposition. It is entirely the result of the present government.
If the exercise by free citizens of this nation of recourse to the courts in order to clarify the meaning or effect of a piece of legislation has a result that was unintended by the present administration or its adherents, that is surely a reason to be thankful.
Indeed, in the event that any subsequent administration, howsoever formed, should pass legislation that appeared to diminish or restrict the rights of citizens to express themselves, I would be the second (after DPF) to assert the right of any affected citizen to seek clarification in the courts.
May 22nd, 2008 at 1:04 am
Sean
“We are discussing a High Court judgment regarding the legal effect of an Act that was drafted for and passed by this present Labour Administration. Any chilling effect on the rights of citizens to freely express themselves has nothing whatsoever to do with the Opposition. It is entirely the result of the present government.”
The law was always going to involve some president setting/working out in the courts. The complexity is revealed by the fact that a professional body, the electoral commission, got the first judgement wrong. Given this, I’m not surprised that the Act’s drafters didn’t see it coming.
DPF spotted the possibility of a loophole in the legislation which he thought he could use to attack one of the left’s most effective campaining bodies. When his attempt to exploit it failed with the electoral commission, the National Party got their lawyers on to it. They spent what must have been many thousands of dollars in order to argue an interpretation of the law that silences 50,000 people.
In short, the National party has gone to a lot of effort and has spent a lot of money to work away at a technicality in the law, in order to work directly against the stated purpose of its anti-EFB campaign. Namely, the protection of freedom of speech.
Now this is surely good “gamesmanship”, and a strategically astute move by National. But it also eliminates any pretence that National has to claiming a moral high ground on “free-speech” issues. In fact it renders their whole anti-EFB/A campaign a fraud. It’s always been about down and dirty politics, not principle.
May 22nd, 2008 at 3:52 am
What an excellent turn of events. The EFA is the gift that keeps on giving.
Has a government ever looked as incompetent as the Labour Government right now? It can’t seem to get anything right. The budget looks like it is shaping up to be a disaster as well. To be fair it is only in office now because it cheated its way back into office in 2005. It’s going to be decimated come November and will be out of office for a guaranteed six years.
May 22nd, 2008 at 4:50 am
liarbours DOOMED DOOMED, HA HA
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:07 am
Well, it seems the Standard Gang are out in force barking and baying about this one. What else can you expect.
I noted this comment on the commie rag page
“It’s clear as day that the EFA was never intended to exclude democratic organisations such as the EPMU from campaigning”
There is NO way you can make that statement in clear conscience, you know why? Because NO-ONE including the Minister in charge had any idea what was going on as the legislation was so aborted.
One thing you can be clear about was that the Government of the day intended that entities associated with the National Party were to have their democratic rights curtailed while entities supporting the Labour Party were to have no such imposition.
So, in a round about way, the Commies were right with respect the original intent of the legislation not to exclude unions, but to exclude any pro Nat entity. Unfortunately it didn’t quite pan out as intended.
Better luck in 2012.
May 22nd, 2008 at 5:58 am
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
I didn’t think much of your 1:04 comment.
Your argument: Labour good-National bad.
In reply:
(1) You characterise this as a “free speech” issue – but it’s equally arguable that the case is about integrity in the election process. The purpose of the Act includes a reference to “greater transparency and accountability on the part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in election activities in order to minimise the perception of corruption“.
(2) You appear not to have bothered to read the judgment:
The matter is to be remitted back to the Commission. You claimed much earlier on this thread: “And clearly the EPMU and the Labour Party are two very distinct organisations“. Given this, I’m surprised you’re not arguing that National’s won the battle but possibly not the war – but perhaps that doesn’t sit well with Labour good-National bad.
Other comments:
(3) You appear to think this case involves “complexity”. In fact, it’s a fairly straightforward application of “person” (a word which has a well-established legal meaning) in the context of the EFA.
(4) You claim not to be surprised that “the Act’s drafters didn’t see it coming”. Utter rubbish. I’ve worked with members of the very capable team at Parliamentary Counsel Office, so have some understanding of their internal processes. “Person” is a key concept in s 13, and it’s ridiculous to suggest (as you do) that PCO overlooked a key technical point. Don’t believe me? Read para [17] carefully – the Judge observes that “person” doesn’t have a uniform meaning in s 13.
(5) You speculate that “[The National Party] spent what must have been many thousands of dollars in order to argue an interpretation of the law that silences 50,000 people“. More Labour good-National bad. The Judge clearly didn’t view this as frivolous litigation, for the first sentence of the judgment says: “This application for judicial review raises a short but important point of statutory interpretation concerning the Electoral Finance Act 2007 (the EFA)“. Moreover, you conveniently overlook the fact that EPMU spent what must have been many thousands of dollars on lead counsel, R E Harrison QC, in order to argue an interpretation of the law that would defeat the clear purpose of s 13(2)(f) – as to that clear purpose, see para [22].
You’re playing spin-the-whisky-bottle, PhillipJohn, and you’d better hide it quickly before Deity Nigel turns up!
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:27 am
But, in the face of all of this documented information, it all boils down to a National-Party -ed conspiracy to suppress freedom of expression. A funny thing though, isn’t it some on the left are the first to denigrate the ‘freedom of expression’ when concerned citizens go on marches often on the basisi that the numbers are too small to qualify as real politics. That too, is in the spirit of the EFA, wherin a bunch of bullies thought that ‘might-equals-right’ and used their numbers to ram through an undemocratic law.
However, if you are into conspiracies, how about this one? So now to why this happened. IMO.The last election was narrowly ‘won’ by Labour courtesy of the National-EB conspiracy. What better way to win the 2008 election than by introducing a contentious piece of legislation which, if challenged by National would be trotted out to assert that Key is merely ‘Brash 2′ and in cahoots with shadowy right-wing power-brokers. Labour strategists clearly thought they could ram this through, and the opposition, keen to wash its hands of anything which might suggest they are in bed with the EB or other ‘right-wing extremists’ would fold. National and Labour’s enemies would be limited in their expression (no more nasty nasty bill-boards, remember) and Labour could double-dip into the tax-dollars to fund an expensive multi-media dog-whistler campaign to persuade voters that they have never had it so good, while nasty National would do everything to sell the family silver to the highest bidder.
But bless his socks, Key out-thought them. At the eleventh hour, just as Labour were gearing up to link National to the far-right Christian anti s.59 amenders, he came out with a comprimise! F**k! so that screwed the Key and religious-nutter link, thus taking the fuel out of future Key-EB link conspiracies. Suddenly, the EFA, rather than being a stick with which to beat Key with was turning on its very designers.
It all went so terribly wrong! The plan was to design a law to advantage Labour, and embarrass National. It was going to be the flag-ship on which Labour would cruise to victory, while the opposition, gagged and impotent could only watch from the side-lines! But it became the Trojan Horse in Labour’s camp, highlighting not only Hlene’s dictatorial nature for all to see, but also (and this is her real crime) exposing her lack of political judgement in starkest relief, at a most crucial time. Result? A major Unions’ freedom of expression suppressed, where before it was not. All courtesy of a Party which clearly thought it was above the Law.
This is why the EFA will be Helen’s epitaph.
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:52 am
You want karma? Check out this EPMU press release from last year.
“Our position on the Electoral Finance Bill is clear. When we have economic inequalities in our society that allow the very wealthy to spend large amounts of money to influence an election then it is entirely justified and appropriate for Parliament to pass a law to mitigate that imbalance.
“Subject to refinements, we strongly support this legislation being passed.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0709/S00377.htm
I’m guessing one of the refinements they forgot to ask for was ensuring the law applied to everyone except them.
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:03 am
roger: “They spent what must have been many thousands of dollars in order to argue an interpretation of the law that silences 50,000 people.”
Oh, the irony! The National Party wouldn’t have had those ‘thousands of dollars’ had it not been for the EFA.
How’s Benson? Have you and he been exchanging any more pics?
May 22nd, 2008 at 7:57 am
cheers Nomestrodamus
There’s really very little to add is there, not only is little phillipjohn completely busted as the partisan hack he always has been, but he once again demonstrates why he shouldn’t post while drunk.
At least this time we were spared the lovesongs and protestations of desire for DPF. All we got was the incoherent splutter and the weird spelling – I guess the student allowance is running a bit short at the moment, so the cask is having to be rationed?
I do sometimes wonder if he really believes the stuff he gabbles on about, i am half convinced that he is a murray mccully black ops campaign to convince ordinary readers that labour supporters are ideologically constipated lunatics.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:08 am
You need to convince Joe Pub that Labour supporters are ideologically constipated lunatics?
I’m confused.
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:15 am
One does wonder though, how the individual members of the EPMU feel about their Union Dues being spent on Very, very expensive QC type legal fees (literally tens of thousands of dollars) trying to set up the union as a political party.
Probably about the same as they would feel about paying the salaries of union staffers who spend their days blogging (if only they knew).
May 22nd, 2008 at 8:19 am
Hey, you’re fogetting the fleet lease deals on Ford Falcons and Mobile Phone rentals and ‘clothing allowances’ for suits and ‘office’ allowances’ for the front room with the computer in it + mortgage %.
Bet they’d be well happy with that. aye Brendan!
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:03 am
Lee C: I agree with your tthred.
It did occur to me in one of your conclusions: “It all went so terribly wrong! The plan was to design a law to advantage Labour, and embarrass National”, that the words, “and disadvantage” could have been added. The matter then becomes a criminal offence under the Crimes Act”.
A very interesting angle on this aspect has appeared, but it it will take me a little while to organise it into a presentable thread.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:26 am
Philip John: Can you really be that dumb Paul. In the same post I said When it involves $600,000 worth of dishonest, secretive campaigning. Yes.. That’s the difference between the EB and the EPMU.
Still the tired old lies. And not a whisper of a ghost of a mention for the $800,000 worth of dishonest, secretive and stolen campaigning. You could save us all a lot of time if everytime you posted you simply copied and pasted:
“Labour good-National bad”
We wouldn’t have to skim your drivel and point out the glaring holes in your arguments.
Philip John: Now this is surely good “gamesmanship”, and a strategically astute move by National. But it also eliminates any pretence that National has to claiming a moral high ground on “free-speech” issues. In fact it renders their whole anti-EFB/A campaign a fraud. It’s always been about down and dirty politics, not principle.
Out of curiousity – put yourself into the shoes of the National Party. They are facing a Labour party that has stolen $800,000 of public funds for electioneering. Then introduced retrospective legislation to legalize this. And then gave us the EFA. And then became the first party to break it. Several times. And continued to try and use public funds for electioneering.
What would you do, as the opposition? Would you sit back and sell free speech to the ones who are doing their best to destroy it?
Or would you do everything in your power to defeat the corrupted Labour Party and Greens and try to bring in a new NZ government that would do away with this corruption and take a proper, bi-partisan principled approach to restructuring our electoral laws?
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:27 am
Congratulations, David.
May 22nd, 2008 at 9:43 am
Chris Diack,
“Of course. Party members can also form incorporated societies to seek and gain registered third party status – this is probably likely given that National and Labour are already hitting the NZ$2.4 million spending cap.”
Except those “involved in the administration of the affairs of a party”
EFA sect 13(f)i
May 22nd, 2008 at 10:46 am
unaha-closp:
That applies to the body itself be it natural or legal (or artificial as termed by the judgment). If legal, it does not extend to the membership, or shareholders. One of the effects/benefits of incorporation is that the body is a legal person in its own right as distinct from any membership.
Thus it would be a simple question of fact: is the “Fair Wages Campaign 2008 Inc” as set up by EPMU members involved in the administration of the affairs of the Labour Party… and the answer is almost certainly no. The only situation where this might not be the case is if the incorporated body is an agent of the party (under the law of agency) or a sham.
If the EPMU withdraw their application for registered third party status then it’s still an arguable question as to whether they themselves are involved in the administration of the affairs of the Labour Party. This makes any challenge of the EPMU sponsored third party organisation even harder, since to oppose that application for third party status one would have to establish an agency relationship (or some sort of sham or fraud that warrants lifting the incorporated status) between the RTP and the affiliated union and then the Labour Party or between the RTP and the RPP directly. This won’t be easy.
I think it unlikely that many natural persons who are party members will seek registered third party status as one does not want to even get into the issues surrounding involvement in the administration of the affairs of the Party.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:21 pm
Refer to my previous thread. This is in the post:
Dear Police Commissioner Howard Broad
Thank you for your response 19 May 2008 to my letter dated 12 May 2008.
You dishonestly quote from this letter thus: “I refer you to your letter to the Commissioner of Police dated 12 May 2008 in which you claim police are not empowered to determine legal issues”.
My whole sentence is: “You as Commissioner of Police are not empowered to determine legal issues including how particular statutory provisions should be interpreted”. This was followed by: “This is the function of the Courts”.
There is no comma after “legal issues” in my letter. It was a complete sentence and you should have included: “including how particular statutory provisions should be interpreted”. To indicate that you had uplifted only portion of the sentence you should have indicated the omission by…..Your omission in this instance is misleading, and in my book it is called “fudging the answer”.
You also go on to state: “Police do not have a statutory duty to prosecute those members of Parliament who supported this Bill.”
You used the Bill of Rights Act 1688 section 1 to dismiss my first allegation, and when challenged on this issue, you introduce a misquotation from my renewed allegation to dismiss it?
Please show me where you do not have a statutory duty to prosecute under Bribery and Corruption “those Members of Parliament who supported the Electoral Finance Bill through the House and 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”.
In my view you have a statutory duty to investigate my allegations and leave it to the Courts to determine a verdict.
My view of the law is that there are sections of the Crimes Act 1961 that apply to all”Servants of the Crown” of which you are one.
May 22nd, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Roger,
This is a serious question if there are 300,000 union members and each are paying $7.50 per week which gives them a turn over of $1.5 million a week or $78 million per year, this sounds a lot like a very big business, which is exactly what this bill was to stop, so what is your objection to ALL big business’s being stopped or is it only supposed to stop the business’s that oppose what your leanings are?
May 22nd, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Chris,
This makes any challenge of the EPMU sponsored third party organisation even harder, since to oppose that application for third party status one would have to establish an agency relationship (or some sort of sham or fraud that warrants lifting the incorporated status) between the RTP and the affiliated union and then the Labour Party or between the RTP and the RPP directly. This won’t be easy.
Shouldn’t be that hard, the act does require that each third party registers its sources of funding.
The important question now is how involved in admin of Labour is the EPMU.
May 23rd, 2008 at 3:56 am
Receiving a donation from the EPMU by an incorporated entity established by EPMU members for the purposes of gaining RTP status does not mean that that entity is involved in the administration of the affairs of the Labour Party – that as I said is a simple factual question.
Whether the EPMU is involved in the administration of the affairs of the Labour Party is only relevant if they continue to pursue their application. The way Andrew Little spoke on RNZ it would seem the even the EPMU think that they are unlikely to achieve registration because of their affiliation status.