Rodney faces prosecution for his yellow jacket
The Electoral Commission has found four items were illegal election advertisements, and has referred three of them to the Police for possible prosecution. The one that will get all the news is that Rodney Hide’s yellow jacket has been referred.
ACT told the Electoral Commission that Rodney rectified any problems by affixing an authorisation inside the jacket that can be shown to anyone who asks to see it, but this wasn’t deemed sufficient. So Rodney and his jacket may end up in the dock. That’s a shame as no doubt he’ll start weariing it again!
It does show of course how stupid the law is.
The Greens had some unauthorised fence signs in Palmerston North, but ruled the breach inconsequential.
National MP Nicky Wagner has been referred to the Police. It seems she distributed printouts of some powerpoint slides at a meeting and the final slide had tick Wagner and tick National. That made it an election advertisement. I think this is the first National breach of the law.
Finally a flyer for Roger Douglas put together by his local campaign team was not authorised by the ACT Party Secretary, so was also a breach of the EFA and has been referred to the Police.
I wonder if the law will be repealed before any prosecutions occur?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
So let me get this straight, a sign is “inconsequential” and a jacket needs a full police investigation.
A sign is “inconsequential” and a powerpoint presentation needs a full police investigation.
How come not one single Green or Labour breach ever passed the threshold of “inconsequential”?
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:27 pm
Absolutly unbelievable!
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:30 pm
What a fucken basket case country. What a justice system. Klark and Winston roam free after all of their corruption and cronyism, and Rod Hide is before the Police and the Courts for wearing a yellow jacket.
..and people have the nerve to chastise me for saying this country is an inwardly collapsing socialist hole.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:31 pm
This isn’t the relevant “oversized” and “wasteful” bureaucracies taking their chance to stick it to Rodney, before Rodney starts sticking it to them through his role as Minister of Sacking Government Employees, perhaps?
PS: Red – Yo’ Momma’s an inwardly collapsing socialist hole!
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Don’t fret RB once we have assumed power fully we will make having an ugly red face in combination with John Lennon specs and an ugly wrinkled face in combination with disgusting teeth an offence against the state and punishable by ten years hard labour. Breaking rocks will be the most useful work ever that those two tossers have done.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:51 pm
As persons in the Service of the Crown it can be shown that in breaching the Electoral Act they breached the 1961 Crimes act Bribery and Corruption in that they sought to advantage themselves to the disadvantage of other contending parties. The police have a statutory obligation to prosecute. none of rescinding the present law.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Frank
So there might be retrospective validations this time?
I just jumped onto ipredict and gobbled up a few hundred “repeal of the EFA” shares….
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:54 pm
If ever there was a compelling reason for repealing the EFA, the thought of Rodney Hide unbuttoning his jacket and flashing at passers-by is it
Redbaiter makes a good point in his typically colourful fashion, however. Since when has dismissal from one’s employment counted as sufficient penalty for breaking the law? If a checkout chick pilfered some change from the float, would Mr Plod conveniently forget to prosecute just because she got the sack?
There’s still a long list of unanswered questions about scampi, trips to las Vegas and a host of other issues and yet an election defeat seems to have rendered those responsible immune from prosecution.
Mind you, I did say at the time that the Police weren’t serving the Labour Party per se… they serve the political elite, who in turn vote to give the Police more and more power. The only way justice will ever be done now is if John Key and Chris Findlayson insist that it is… then the Police will act, because while they won’t want to annoy their friends in the Opposition, they will want to annoy their friends in the government even less.
December 3rd, 2008 at 5:56 pm
But it was OK for Hellen to wear a red jacket…?
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:10 pm
I have just had an utterly brilliant idea instead of hard labour for the two fuglys lets ship them over to Canada to sort things out there. No point in giving the pair of bastards underfloor heating and a widescreen tv at our expense. They can live in an igloo and watch the wolves circling it for entertainment
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:12 pm
Rex
I thought about the possibility of a senior Labour party person facing charges and I got confused – is it actually possible for it happen? Is there some hole in time/space that would prevent it or has it simply not occured in the past because Labour were corrupt and self serving?
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Yep, you can fuck with the Crown accounts all you like, hang your police drivers out to dry, sign paintings fraudulently, but it takes a yellow jacket to get prosecuted. What a fucking joke. Busy day expected in Parliament on Dec 8.
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Whaleoil: You could actually read the write-up on why the Greens’ one wasn’t referred to the cops, since Farrar provided a link to it.
Or you could just get angry about the vast corrupt leftie conspiracy, presumably that is what you are alluding is behind this? Eh? Eh?
December 3rd, 2008 at 6:44 pm
A banana yellow jacket exposes the dirty truth…we’re a banana republic.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:11 pm
If his jacket breached the Act why didn’t Meturia Turei’s bathing suit whcih was emblazoned with a Green party logo with no authorisation? : http://homepaddock.wordpress.com/2008/12/03/if-his-jacket-breached-the-efa-why-didnt-her-bathing-suit/
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
When this ludicrous EFA was first introduced, it should have been totally, comprehensively and derisibly ignored by everyone with a brain. It could have been chopped liver from day one. A law is only a law if anyone takes it seriously ..surely. But no, we spluttered but tippy-toed around it and allowed it to become as effective as it is. So now we talk seriously about Hide’s yellow jacket. Have we got nothing better to do? Dear god!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Oh great the keystone cops will struggle to solve the straitjacket who done it. Maybe police resources should be better used finding the killer of K Twins? What a lunatic country with a deranged and pathetic justice system. Only in kiwiland FFS!! Will Clint defend Rodney Rude?
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:12 pm
Just having thighs the size of hers must break some law. I thought Green party people only ate healthy organic free range food so none of them should be overweight.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:19 pm
I suggest that John Key pardon everybody involved in these breaches – except the Greens.
Hopefully this will be the first of many times that the Greens are hauled before court to face up for their crimes.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:22 pm
John – I would have thought her more an environmental hazard…
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
There couldn’t be a copper in this circus country who would have the personal gumption to investigate ‘yellow-gate’ for fear of been vilified by his peers. I’m incensed that my hard earned taxes are paying cardigan-wearing, public servants (aka tossers), to persue this absolute fucking crap. Cheeses farkin christ!
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Elsewhere, babies are still being beaten and murdered to death.
December 3rd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Doesn’t this illustrate the underlying “brilliance” of Labour’s EFA. It was, after all, an election winner for Labour.
And as Paul quite rightly says, “elsewhere, babies are still being beaten and murdered to death.” Broad, now free of the old 9th Floor needs to get his priorities right.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:20 pm
Tell me again how the Electoral Commission is impartial and oh so concerned for the chilling effect of
Rodney’s jacketI mean the EFA.Corrupt, both then and now. Resign, Helena Catt – your public handwringing about this act were just a smoke screen to cover your support for it. Anything the Greens do – inconsequential. Anything Labour do – inconsequential, not in the public interest, first time let off for fairness sake. Anything obscure parties do – refer to Police, anything National or ACT do refer to Police.
How much more do we need before we admit the amazing coincidence? Resign!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
And the police have announced they’ll be using planes to track dangerous drivers this summer. Now there’s a competent use of funds. Christ on a bike!
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
What ever happened to the rule of law and three strikes and you are out?
Or does Rodney believe that only some laws ought to be obeyed?
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:36 pm
whatever happened to parliamentary convention mickysavage? Remember that? No? Liar.
What ever happened to retrospective law changes to cover the theft of $840,000 by the Prime minister’s office? Remember that? no? Liar.
Whatever happened to speeding on the way to the rugby and the subsequent corruption of the prosecution by Helen? Remember that law? no? Liar.
How about the law over fraudulently signing your name to someone elses work?
No? memory loss? I count three strikes – you’re out!
Did those laws apply to Labour? Fuck off you pathetic troll.
December 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If the former Minister of Arts, Culture & Heritage (Herr Helen, whose only fashion sense lay in an airbrush and whose only artistic ability lay in fraudulent signatures) had made some fashion laws then Rodney’s jacket would have got him 20 to life.
You’ve got to admit that the jacket was a brilliant piece of publicity.
http://www.kiwipolemicist.wordpress.com
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Goodgod
The pledge card expense gives me particular angst. Each party gets a budget to spend on publicity. In 2005 National chose to spend its money on those odious Iwi Kiwi billboards and on Crosby Textor advice. Labour saved its money up and spent it on the pledge card. This small piece of publicity contained promises from Helen and Labour what they would do if elected. They then did exactly what they promised to do. How this is somehow dishonest beggars me.
Then when the Auditor General chose to say that things were different to how all of the parties thought it would be Labour, through its MPs and members paid the money back. This is not evidence of corruption, it is evidence of the greatest amount of good will.
Let National open its records of donations received and expenditure of Parliamentary Services money and then let us have this debate.
Speeding cars? Well I should go to the closest jail and offer myself up for prison. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.
Evidence of corruption? You throw words around without actually understanding their meaning.
Wait for 5 years and then look back and realise that Helen did a remarkable job as PM.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:10 pm
“Wait for 5 years and then look back and realise that Helen did a remarkable job as PM.”
You are fucking kidding? Knob.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Having read the Commision’s decisions in relation to the Green sign and the Act jacket, I agree with the outcomes in both cases. Putting to one side my views on the propriety of the law itself, the decisions are a justifiable exercise of the Commission’s discretion to refer matters to the police.
In fact, it seems to me to be doubtful whether the Green actions were actually an intentional breach of the law (the Commission deciding they were): the breach was predominantly due to vandalism, the signs originally displaying promoter statements. Act’s breach, however, was clearly intentional. It was designed to get publicity. It was also persistent and was never rectified. Deliberate breaches of the law should be referred to the police, or we do risk becoming a banana republic.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Rich Prick
The depth of your intellectual response matches the quality of your name.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
Micky Savage, your username is an insult to MJS, so you can’t bloody talk. The pledge card was paid for with money that wasn’t Labours – it was the taxpayers. In other words, the Labour piggies got caught with their noses in the trough. Instead of facing criminal charges, like Joe Public would have, they merely changed the law, and made their overspend legal. Oh, and mucked around in bed with Winston while he whored his $158,000 out to anyone who didn’t mind being made into political capital.
So before you accuse others of throwing words around they don’t understand, try to demonstrate a shred of competence yourself. It will do wonders for your credibility.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I agree with Pmoney that, foolish or not, the law is the law.
And the ACT Party makes much of the rule of law and the importance of law and order.
I hope that Rodney will plead guilty, make it clear that he is completely unrepentant and feels no remorse and that he expects to be punished to the full extent of the law.
He must also not support the retrospective repeal of the EFA. The Act must be repealed — it is repugnant to decency — but the principle that everyone has to abide by all the laws enacted by parliament is more important.
Anything else will be gross hypocrisy.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Laws are only as legitimate as the government that passes them. Labour was not a legitimate government.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:09 pm
S68 (1) of the EFA says that no payment must be made to any elector on the account of the exhibition of any election advertisement. Yet Rodney Hide paid for this jacket as an election advertisement according to the Electoral Commission, and according to S68(2) of the EFA, this means both Hide and the person who received payment for making Hide this election advertisement could be guilty of an illegal practice due to the payment made.
Oops. The Electoral Commission missed that one.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:12 pm
PMoney,
The midnight conga line to banana republic status began a looooonnnnnnng time ago.
The mere fact you needed to read an ‘official’ statement from a government bureaucrat into whether a fence picket or an item of clothing constitutes a breach of x y or z only highlights the sad state of affairs in this country.
How much did this waste cost us in lost productivity and wasted resources?
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:23 pm
The important facts are that National and ACT won on 8 November, Labour and the Greens lost. Some people are still slow to grasp that fact.
December 3rd, 2008 at 11:25 pm
“Rich Prick The depth of your intellectual response matches the quality of your name.”
And that is a leftie for you. As it happens I have a LL.B and a BSc from Otago and an LLM from Cambridge. Do you still wish to discuss my intellect?
December 4th, 2008 at 12:30 am
ACT told the Electoral Commission that Rodney rectified any problems by affixing an authorisation inside the jacket that can be shown to anyone who asks to see it, but this wasn’t deemed sufficient.
And the EC made this decision without any evidence as it hadn’t seen the authorisation statement. It had no address on it so it was not a valid authorisation statement. It simply said ” Authorised by Nick Kearney.. as required by Helen.”
December 4th, 2008 at 4:02 am
The Act should be repealed with limited retrospective effect, to eliminate “breaches” involving nothing more than the exercise of free speech. I’m no fan of retrospective legislation, but in this case it’s needed.
December 4th, 2008 at 8:04 am
Exactly right. Since the jacket complaint was made by an ACT party member, and since it is trivial and since the CEO of the E.C. complained about the “chilling effect” of the EFA – you’d expect her instead to say: this highlights the chilling effect of the EFA… and dismiss it as inconsequential. She knew it was an exercise in free speech.
In politics more than anything else, there are no free lunches and no amazing coincidences.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
The Chief Electoral Office is now looking into the attire of another Epsom candidate. See my blog to see who.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
It is strange that the left have escaped unscathed from the claws or Mz Catt – very strange indeed.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:33 am
The Electoral Commission were the same people who found Labour had overspent in 2005. There weren’t too many accusations of that being evidence of NZ’s banana republic status back then, as I recall. Quite the contrary, the findings formed a large part of a nagging bandwagon that went on for years. Has this body become less respectable now that it’s finding various pissly (but probably technically true) offences?
I find the obsession with it as boring and irrelevant now as I did then, and THAT is the true evidence of NZ being a banana republic. That so many people give so much of a shit about so little.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:59 am
This is the joke post right? Oh, not right…..how petty!
December 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
pushmepullu
No no no…cannabis charges first!