Court Judgement in EFB case

June 21st, 2008 at 7:05 pm by David Farrar

has kindly sent me a copy of the judgement which is here as a pdf.

As I said earlier the protection o parliamentary privilege saw the challenge to the Electoral Finance Bill dismissed. The similiar case against the also was dismissed on the grounds it was asking the Court for an abstract ruling (ie just asking whether the EFA breached the ).

John Boscawen made some comments in the earlier thread which are worth repeating here:

Firstly there can be no doubt that one of the government’s orginal intentions was that anyone who wanted to express an opinion on any political issue in election year would first be required to sign a statutory declartion before they spent a single dollar doing so. ( and Graeme Edgler and others can you quote many examples of not even having to spend a dollar before being caught) .

That is right, whether you agreed with a government policy or you had to first sign a statutory declaration.

The office specifically considered this issue and concluded that it was reasonable and was not inconsistent with the provisions of the Bill of Rights. ( although we should be grateful that they did at least state this was at the outer limit of what would be acceptable). That opinion is dated 26 June 2007, one month before the bill had its first reading. Presumably the Attorney General acted on that advice when he did not notify parliament that the EFB was inconsistent with Bora.

To me it is incomprehensible that the Crown Law office could consisder that it would be acceptable to make all New Zealanders first sign a statutory declaration before they spent a sinle dollar expressing a political view in election year. I would think that most New Zealanders, whether they supportted the left or the right wing of politics would consider this unacceptable.

We took the action we did becausee in my view that approval could not go unchallenged. To allow it to go unchallenged will allow the Crown Law office to write similiar opinions in future. We were looking to the court to tell the Crown Law office and politicians of all persuassions that this was not acceptable.

That original Crown Law opinion was a shocker. The Law Society and Human Rights Commission made mincemeat of it. One does have to wonder how it came to be signed off.

Tags: , , , ,

15 Responses to “Court Judgement in EFB case”

  1. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    What a great day for democracy in New Zealand.

    Well done

    The Labour Party
    The Green Party
    United Future
    New Zealand First

    You are a credit to your nation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    Have just finished “Working with David”, by Michael Bassett. Clearly Pope and the “cup of tea” was Lange’s nadir.

    This debacle will be Clark’s.

    Ironically, despite self proclaimed competence, History will remember Clark as the PM in charge when one of the most shoddy, partisan excuses for legislation that was ever inflicted on a NZ public.

    Sorry Helen, your gone……….blown it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. JohnMacc (60 comments) says:

    Crown Law’s disgraceful legal opinion (claiming the EFBill wasn’t inconsistent with the BOR Act) was signed off by Val Sim.
    Within weeks of signing off that disgraceful piece of bullshit, Val Sim was paid off with an appointment (October 2007) for three years as a member of the Law Commission.
    I suspect that the next govt won’t be renewing that appointment in 2010!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Inventory2 (10,262 comments) says:

    Lee – you left out the Progressive (I use the singular, because there is only one of him!) – hopefully the good voters of Wigram might consider doing the same!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,824 comments) says:

    The EFA will be gone in four months never to blight New Zealand again.

    A bit like Hullen. Might be a link there.

    Win win all round.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    Another rort?

    Charles Chauvel had his team in the shopping area of Tawa on Saturday about 5pm. They had a red van with parliamentary crest etc and even a flag with the same. It was a prominent piece of electioneering as no one was inside it. The van had signage that it was a ‘moble office’. The name of the candidate was on a large stick- on label so it could be reused for others. There was no authorisation on the signage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Yesterday Isuggested to John Boscawan;
    A book should be released about the EFA, and how it was conceived, based on one throwaway sentence in Helen’s post election speech, executed and what efforts have been made to get this far, the secret deal between the parties to create it, the incompetent drafting, including the lies and misrepresentations in Parliament, the use of the EB as a popular bogeyman’ to promote it, the way Crown Law advice was achieved, the perversion of the Select Committee process, the rush through with urgency after the Crown used the idea that it might as
    ‘hearsay’ to subvert the courts process when a challenge to its adherence to the BoRA, and now how the EFA has finally undermined our democratic system.
    This book should profile all of the key players in this from Sims, Burton Cullen Simpson, Clark and the minor players, MPs of teh smaller parties etc, and have a little vignette of Hager’s role.

    The final chapter surely should be titled ‘Helen’s Epitaph’

    David – a bluffer’s guide to the EFA would be a supurb addition to this blog eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    why am i being blocked/stopped from commenting on the general debate thread..?

    piss off..!..rightwing moderators..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Because you only good at the mass debate thread?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    phil, perhaps it’s because they are concerned that you’re making such a ass of yourself mate. you sit at home blogging inanely, doing drugs and living of welfare by choice… while you model all these behaviours to your son. are you proud of that? is it fair on society at large, and on your son specifically?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. JiveKitty (869 comments) says:

    I’ve read your posts in the general debate, Philu, and I can offer a reason, or two, why you may have been: While you appear to be diametrically opposed to those who are probably moderators on this site, if your comments actually added to the debate rather than being flippant, poorly written and/or playing the man instead of the issue, it is unlikely you would have been banned. As it is, you seem to add nothing to the debate. You don’t even pretend to give serious consideration to what is said, instead seeming to prefer ranting, raving, and self-promoting your views and your website. You are an annoyance to many, and you incite comments at a similar level to yours.

    Address the issues, and perhaps write in a more prosaic (comprehensible) form, and I don’t see you getting banned.

    And if you complain about those on the right who do similar things to you not getting banned from commenting; well, that’s not the same as the issue being discussed. All reasons above are, in my eyes, valid for banning you from commenting on a thread. None of them are partisan.

    On to the main brunt of the thread, I am extremely disappointed with the ruling. It’s a pity the BoRA doesn’t stipulate provisions (penalties) for the attorney-general’s failure to report to Parliament where a bill is in breach, because in my view, it certainly was breached in this case.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. dad4justice (8,036 comments) says:

    Crown Law has been tainted by the corrupt Labour Party and it’ll take years to fix the shambolic mess that Helen Clark’s regime of demented fools has created. These bunch of idiots are a sad circus and I hope we cleanse ourselves of their infectious lies.

    Philu – get a life, as the party is over matey!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. KevOB (267 comments) says:

    “I am extremely disappointed with the ruling. It’s a pity the BoRA doesn’t stipulate provisions (penalties) for the attorney-general’s failure to report to Parliament where a bill is in breach, because in my view, it certainly was breached in this case.”

    Parliament answers only to itself. Cullen’s breach has to be dealt with in the house. Otherwise parliamentary procedure and business would be subject to review in the Courts. Who then governs ? if we can call what we now have as government. Cullen’s breach has to be dealt with politically and the EFA may yet kill the party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Lee C (3061) +4 Says:

    June 22nd, 2008 at 9:19 am
    “Yesterday I suggested to John Boscawan;
    A book should be released about the EFA, and how it was conceived, based on one throwaway sentence in Helen’s post election speech, executed and what efforts have been made to get this far, the secret deal between the parties to create it, the incompetent drafting, including the lies and misrepresentations in Parliament, the use of the EB as a popular bogeyman’ to promote it, the way Crown Law advice was achieved, the perversion of the Select Committee process, the rush through with urgency after the Crown used the idea that it might as
    ‘hearsay’ to subvert the courts process when a challenge to its adherence to the BoRA, and now how the EFA has finally undermined our democratic system.
    This book should profile all of the key players in this from Sims, Burton Cullen Simpson, Clark and the minor players, MPs of teh smaller parties etc, and have a little vignette of Hager’s role…….”

    AGREE, LeeC.

    One thing I strongly suggest needs demolishing is the way a Lawnmower/Chainsaw shop owner and an Office fitout guy and a bunch of similar very small businessmen (members of the EB, by the way) have been made an exhibition of by our governing regime and their arsewiping allies in the “Mainstream” media as part of some sort of plot on the part of the filthy “super rich” to hijack the democratic process with their “big money”. For Pete’s effing sake, I feel like barfing every time I consider it, the sheer cancerous envy of the Left over these moderately successful obviously very small businessmen putting a considerable portion of their life’s savings on the line over their strongly held opinions, for which they were entitled to our respect, not a campaign of lies against them. As for the neo-Stalinist prick Hager and the acres of free editorial given to him by the same arsewiping MSM, and Michael Bassett getting sacked by Tim “Emmeline” Pankhurst at the DomCominternAgitpropPost for effectively telling the truth about the MSM emperor’s clothes………..BARF, BARF, BARF.

    Make it a good hardhitting chapter on the above especially, LeeC and John Boscawen………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    I have only read through the judgment in part given that to give it its full due will take to long and damage an already overstretched schedule. In the first instance the application was a total waste of money. If Rodney Hide had been reading some of my writing or made an inquiry into the facts surrounding the information I have already provided in length then he would have saved a lot of time. Additionally his speeches would have been far more focused and some of these difficulties relative to daily news could have been better engaged. At least Mr Hide has done the decency of occassionally keeping up.

    At this point I already owe an apology after only three entries onto this blog and its explanation, or more accurately its necessity is a clear indicator as why Mr Hide may be excused from replying. It is convenient to say he couldn’t understand what I am saying, because I either make mistakes or I am not clear. As is identical to this judgement, I cannot venture to complain, after all the three entries so far as is likely this one will contain mistakes or be difficult to understand. I’ll venture, however to say that sometimes the difficult passages or mistakes may not be so much difficult or mistakes they may just be hard to comprehend.

    Firstly,

    There is no precedent that I have yet read where any Court has been forced to fully engage the 1688 legislation. Westco Lagan and Co versus the AG 2002 is easily the closest and has an extraordinarily small window (as they call them). Mr Hide should have done more to explore that by discussing the intention so the applicants with me – yet he has not. The window is one of due process. The argument, thereafter is relatively easy although Rosslyn Noonan as Chief Commissioner from the Human Rights Commission would have this legislation trumped to the as quoted Mangawaro Enterprises. The AG is obliged to follow through with manner and form obligations and not be held by the Court to any substantive manipulation. For those who would keep up with this claim and I advise as politics progress into the elections many should, you should compare the fine print between the judgment over s7 of the BORA and its accountability. Close inspection, in my view, shows that the Magawaro judgement is still about content. It is painted as all inclusive. I suggest it is not and it is challengable, you simply need the right tools.

    Secondly,

    The first point leads to the consistency of the judgment with a small number of judgments where there have been those few who actually want to think about the constitution and then challenge it with the same intention. I don’t believe they have done an effective job. When these cases arise, should the primary threshold of the first point be met as Mr Hide is possibly precisely aware you arrive at the House of Cards, rather than the House of Representatives. This is not yet if necessary to state panic. No immediacy is required where a better purpose for any reader reading if wishing to comprehend what is written is to consider independently the facts as they are stated. I say a House of Cards because if the faction and body of Westminster politicians and their beneficiaries in this country maintain and continue in their ignorance of bliss, this is simply the only natural progression. I’m really suggesting that you read, first, think latter and then consider carefully how to act – no pun really intended. In my post on Winston Peters I am suggesting that Wellington is already rumbling. During the period that the Speaker has been appointed, notably herself living in Tauranga only a few politicians have pushed any real fire at the heart of the cauldron of political abuse. The judgment of this scoop, by democratic principle and in public responsibility should have been challenged face to face in the House under privilege and by a few brave warriors who were prepared to properly earn their pay and rightfully honour the dead the had sent to harder wars before them. What is more their own forefathers sent the public’s forefathers to war. Apparently it is harder to cross the Speaker than it is a border if you would comprehend my drift.

    Thirdly,

    The 1688 legislation is misunderstood and wrongfully comprehended in part that I can quote in New Zealand. There is a Bill of Rights text book and a well esteemed author on page 74 as I remember has made the most fundamental misquote since – well – I’m not sure. Paul Rishworth has written something to the effect of ‘parliament shall not be impeached’. The word is ought. Ought is different from shall. Ought not is different from shall not. Shall is the word elected in the construction of the BORA. Parliament Shall: means that they can sort of play with the term of their obligation and it is up to a democratic and fair minded public to bring any corruption to its knees. Check out section 7 of the Westco judgement against s6 and tell me before you ask the judge, that any reports written must be handled like they are liquid nitrogen. Some readers, probably a few, know why I am saying this. Those who don’t should keep on reading and think carefully before discounting the statement as misunderstood or incorrect.

    Finally,

    The reports have been handled with impetuous frivolity up until the time prior to 2003 when the then Attorney General was reminded what they meant and the purpose of the legislation. On those grounds people who go past this first account giving it any credibility would be helpful building the view that the entry into stable parliament is not by voting in National but more by stepping carefully back through our Attorney General’s obligations, commitment to and performances to s7 of the BORA since 1990. In honesty you have no choice, in reality it is unlikely those with power have any plan. Last time I walked down from Waitangi to Wellington (over a broken period) I asked Mr Cullen to do something about it before I got to Wellington. Obviously he has declined.

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.