Family Party breaks the EFA
February 16th, 2009 at 9:14 am by David FarrarThe Family Party appear to have broken the Electoral Finance Act.
on 7 January 2009 they disclosed that two donors had donated $36,000 and $39,775 – Elias Kanaris and Paul Adams.
The disclosure was meant to be made within 10 working days of the amount donated exceeding $20,000 over 12 months.
Kanaris should have been disclosed by 4 December 2008. And Adams by 24 October 2008.
They had better have a very good excuse for why they didn’t file on time. I suspect they will simply claim they were unaware of the new requirements.
The Party Secretary is Anne Williamson. Assuming she is also their finanical agent, she may be facing a fine.
Related posts:
- It’s the Family Party
- The Family Party want more money
- Greens let off for late donation return
- Family Party Campaign Video
February 16th, 2009 at 9:59 am
Big. Deal.
Anne is a volunteer who probably works full time and has a family. The law should not be so damn prescriptive and onerous on volunteers who willingly donate their time and money for their causes.
I can tell you the election expense returns due soon are proving a nightmare also considering the calendar year spending timeframe and also the expanded definition of election expense. It isn’t paid full time political employees who take the rap but people who give hours upon hours of their free time willingly.
The law is vary much an ass.
I say leave Anne Williamson alone. Who suffered by this late disclosure?
No one.
[DPF: The public who did not learn before the election who the major donors are. ACT deserve credit for immediately declaring a Gibbs donation even though they could have helf off until after the election]
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 10:19 am
Everyone who wants a transparent electoral system suffers.
While I have no truck with laws that limit people’s ability to spend their money on whatever they want: be it fast cars, sexual partners or funding political parties, I do think that liberty is enhanced when there is full and timely disclosure of large political donations.
We know that political power corrupts and checks are required.
I also have no truck with the “I’m an amateur, so the rules shouldn’t apply to me argument”. If you want to participate in a process that involves the allocation of the vast, and largely unchecked, powers of the New Zealand Parliament, then I think that a little bit of administrative ability is not too great a burden to impose. It’s not as if Section 57 of the EFA is difficult to understand:
(1) Every financial agent must file with the Electoral Commission a return in respect of every party donation that exceeds $20,000.
Vote:…
(6) A return must be filed under subsection (1) or (2) within 10 working days of the donation being received by the financial agent.
February 16th, 2009 at 10:21 am
Exactly Gooner. You can expect donations from candidates, this is no surprise and perfectly legitimate (it occurs with every party). The fact that the late disclosure breaches a technicality in the law only shows how overly stringent the law is.
I am not saying that breaching the law is ok – this should not have happened. However we have actually done very well to only breach the EFA now, most other parties were pulled up with it over advertising breaches during the actual campaign.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 10:23 am
Fucking Family Party supporters.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 10:26 am
There is a Family Party?
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 10:37 am
George, I fail to see how transparency has been affected here. Do you seriously think that people would have or have not voted for the FP had they known Paul Adams gave it $30K prior to the election? It is transparent if it is disclosed, which it has been, albeit a little late. I am not saying there should not be disclosure within a set time, I am saying the regulations under the EFA are/were so onerous that huge amounts of time & effort have gone into ensuring volunteers don’t go to jail. These people will simply not be bothered in the future. I say democracy is enhanced when we have participation by these volunteers, not when they leave their positions because of prescriptive bureaucracy.
I never said the rules shouldn’t apply to “amateurs”. I agree that the 10-day limit is easy to abide by for one-off donations, but you are probably not aware that this $20K limit now has a 12-month rolling disclosure which has meant that small parties have had to adopt costly measures to ensure that regular donors of smallish amounts don’t suddenly hit this limit. Many small parties have only one full-time worker: there is simply too much to do under the EFA.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 10:47 am
If you cant comply with the rules dont play the game.
Of course the rules were stupid.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 10:49 am
Greg, every party has breached the EFA. By your reasoning every party should de-register.
Maybe that’s what Labour intended.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Gooner
I have no idea what people think of the Family Party and it’s activities. That’s the point of disclosure: you give people information and they do with it as they will. Some, probably most, will ingore it. For others, it is very important. If the rule makers, who just happen to have an impossible conflict of interest here, start making rules based on what they think is important, then we get crap laws. Which of course is what we have with most of the EFA.
And an excel spreadsheet to keep track of donations is not an expensive measure.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am
Precisely the conditions required for speedy police prosecution. You watch. The crime is that the Family Party are neither Labour nor National. The cops and the E.C. know that their toast has two sides, one red, one blue. Everyone who has had a hand in “enforcing” the criminal EFA has acted dishonorably, bordering on corruptly.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 11:23 am
There should be no issue here.
Until NZ1 is brought to account, the rules are unenforceable.
IMHO
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Glutaemus Maximus
I think having all of NZ1s MP removed from Parliament by the people is a pretty good punishment.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Glut
TOtally agree & George – yes but the theft by a Lawyer who participated in the retrospective law is totally unacceptable and an expample needs to be made if we are to discourage others from doing similarlarly.
Vote:February 16th, 2009 at 1:39 pm
I’m just gobsmacked that there was a sense of belief that the donation of the money (or goods or whatever) would have any impact on the FP’s chance of election.
A fool and his money are soon parted; the big question is how did the fool get the money in the first place?
Vote: