Two Electoral Commission decisions
March 1st, 2009 at 12:30 pm by David FarrarTwo interesting decisions by the Electoral Commission.
The first is hilarious. It is about Richard Green pruning his hedge so it displays “Green”. Yes the EFA even covers hedges. Some quotes:
The hedge does not appear to contain a promoter statement, and there is no evidence that the publication of the hedge was authorised by the financial agent for the Green Party. Therefore if the hedge is an election advertisement then the failure to provide a promoter statement and to have authorisation in writing for that publication would appear to contravene sections 63(2) and 65(1).
Heh, imagine a hedge having to have a promoter statement.
Luckily for Mr Green, the Electoral Commission decided any breach was not wilful, and even if it was, not significant. Interestingly, they didn’t actually determine whether or not the hedge was an election advertisement or not!
Then we have the late disclosure of donations from the Family Party – as previously covered here:
The Family Party have been referred to the Police for possible prosecution. This may be seen as a bit unfair, as the Greens got off for a similiar offence. However that was in the early days of the EFA, and the Commission points to an explicit notice to political parties in May reminding them of the need to report donations that aggregate to more than $20,000 within ten days.
Whether the Police prosecute is another issue. To date the Police have not prosecuted for any offence referred to them.
Related posts:
- Electoral Commission decisions on EFA complaints
- Six Electoral Commission Decisions
- Four more decisions from the Electoral Commission
- Electoral Act Infringement Outcomes
March 1st, 2009 at 1:09 pm
So will the NAT Government repeal the Electoral Finance Act ;
and if so when,
and if not why not
[DPF: You need to get out more. It was repealed a few weeks ago]
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Ummm … it already has. Do you not read the newspapers?
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 1:39 pm
When will it take the scalpel to fund wasters like this lot. There’s a better question
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 1:45 pm
What, another waste of tax payers money!!Every commission should be put in the junk heap, along with the utopian greens!
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Looks like the Commission is hedging its bets.
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Racing, the Arts,Welfare…..theres oddles of slack that can be snipped off without needing to cry a tear….
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 2:41 pm
So Mr Green couldn’t show his name in public? What about all that advertising in the phone book.
Good thing that the EFA is gone or I might have started the smith party or the stop party or the giveway party. I was just to slow this could have been great fun.
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“…and there is no evidence that the publication of the hedge was authorised by the financial agent for the Green Party.”
I have a real problem with anyone suggesting that a hedge has been “published”. How can something that grows naturally out of the ground be said to be published? How insane.
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 4:22 pm
I think you’ll find that it was repealed today.
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 4:44 pm
kiki suggests:
Or the “120 km/h” party, with signs alongside every major stretch of straight road with a safety barrier in the middle
d4j / Viking2: Can I suggest you have the logo of your favoured party tattooed on your backside? That way you’ll be able to legally front up to the Commission and do a “Dun Mihaka”. May not be the most effective electoral advertisement, but think of the feeling of satisfaction you’ll get
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 4:55 pm
Isn’t the real issue here about how much this cost.
Mr Green the singing teacher, his hedge and his topiary of 8yrs standing has faced the horror of the full weight of the State. He has been required to explain himself to the satisfaction of an agency of the State.
He could have faced yet another State imposed ordeal (had the Commission not been satisfied with his answers) via a Police investigation and ultimately criminal prosecution if the Police had decided to exercise their prosecutorial discretion and take him to trial.
The Electoral Commission decision alone represents probably more than $100,000 of taxpayers’ money just in regulatory costs alone.
The real lesson about the EFA is that we have taken a glimpse of highly regulated political competition looks like. I suspect that politicians deep down quite like it: it further priviliages their speech particularly that of the two old parties.
The big test for this Government is whether they simply quibble with the content of Labour’s regulatory attempt and instead offer us “smart regulation” arrived at by Parliamentary consensus ( = National and Labour aggreement) which is of course their regulatory content substituted for Labours non consensus attempt ipso facto it is ‘smart.’
My fear is that both of the two old parties actually like regulating political competition so long as the benefits of that regulation fall more or less equally between them.
National has its nose-out-of-joint because Labour broke the practice of bi partisan private deal making on electoral matters (note the term bi partisan). The last significant adjustment to the Electoral Act 1993 and associated legislation occurred prior to the first MMP election. They still slip into the use of the “bi partisan” term.
The real test for both National and Labour is to accept that in the medium term both will be better off with less regulation of political competition. Whilst in any one election a party may do better than another in a simpler regulatory environment, overtime the advantages will equal out.
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 6:40 pm
The Head of the Electoral Commission has failed MY good governance test. The EFA was repealed (ok, not retrospectively – but that’s the preserve of Labour administrations) and if I were sitting in that Chair I would have turned a ‘Nelson’s Eye’ to the alleged breaches and filed them under the ‘How sad, too bad, never mind’ File 13.
And while I was about it I would also get on the blower to the Commissioner of Police and suggest he exercise his discretion in respect of the referral re Rodney because if he doesn’t, he will just look more stupid and out of touch than he already is.
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Rex, the greater satisfaction would come from having them put on the dole. they are a waste of money albeit they are there because we have inanely stupid politicians who need to be treated like children. Tattooing my bum doesn’t inspire me, sacking hordes of blood(money) sucking State servants and socialist politicians does.
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 8:51 pm
Ross,
“The EFA was repealed (ok, not retrospectively – but that’s the preserve of Labour administrations)” …
So let me get this straight. Parliament didn’t retrospectively undo the law, but the Electoral Commission should take it on itself to act as if it did? Thereby ignoring the statute in force at the time of the alleged offences? And then the Commission should seek to influence the prosecutorial judgment of the Police? And this would be, on your test, “good governance”?
By any chance, do you work for a finance company, hedge fund, or other paragon of good decision making practice?
Vote:March 1st, 2009 at 9:18 pm
its not me farrer, but you who needs to get out into the real world
Vote:March 2nd, 2009 at 7:43 am
Ah, but this is not the Labour Party or the Greens. Those two parties turned the police into their enforcement arm and never suffered prosecution no matter how much they stole. The Family Party is not one of those two parties.
Vote:March 2nd, 2009 at 7:46 am
AG – Yep, precisely. The Law was an ass. Everyone but the Greens acknowledged that. It has been repealed so I would expect those involved in the three (I think) prosecutions to exercise the ‘Judgement of Solomon’ and kick any prosecutions into touch.
There are many precedents for this (not in the public interest) including one I recall involving a painting and an aspirant for a top UN job.
Vote: