Electoral Act Infringement Outcomes
May 29th, 2009 at 7:00 am by David FarrarThe Police have responded to my OIA request for the outcomes of the electoral complaints and referrals. I have uploaded the spreadsheet – ero-case-outcomes-as-at-28-may-2009.
There are a number of categories, I have grouped them by:
Proceeding
This mean the case has not been closed, or at least not notified to the affected parties.
- 9 candidates not filed expense retruns on time (7 now have)
- Labour for several advertisements being distributed on polling day in Blenheim and Taranaki
- Rodney Hide’s yellow jacket
- Nicholas Keesing for distributing election material on polling day
- NewstalkZB for prohibited election programmes with Winston Peters and Shane Jones
- Shane Jones for an election advertisement without a promoter statement
The Police have said they will update me when these are resolved. Nos 3 and 4 will be very interesting. 5 could also be a precedent about MPs on talkback during the regulated period.
Prosecuted
- Family Party for late filing (twice) of donation returns when donation exceeded $20,000
- Two cases of double voting
- NZ First banners in Tauranga with no promoter statement
No 3 I am of course very interested in. Also to some degree with No 1.
Warning Given
- National Ohariu Candidate for display of ribbons on election day
- Toroa Radio for a prohibited election programme for the Alliance
- 41 cases of double voting
- Te Runanga O Kirikiriroa Trust for an advertisement supporting a party not approved by that party
- Nicky Wagner for an advertisement not authorised and no promoter statement
- ACT for a Hunua flyer not authorised and no promoter statement
- Cobb & Co Paraparaumu for an election advertisement supporting a party not approved by that party
- Dog registered to vote
- Labour boolet at Waikato University with no promoter statement
These all look reasonable sensible to deal with by warning.
No offence
- Six cases of apparent double voting
- Jim Anderton’s e-newsletter, as it had a promoter statement on website where people subscribed to it
- NZ First donation return for 2007 as Party Secretary took reasonable steps
- Social Credit for late 2007 donation return as they had a reasonable excuse
- EMA Northern for exceeding spending limit of third party ads – not an offence as Police found it was an issue ad, not an election ad
- A phone survey which may have been an election advert – isolated and no promoter known
- Jim Anderton ad in Southern Express as Police accept advert published in his Ministerial role
- Voter enrolled in two electorates – turned out to be two people with same name
No 2, No 5 and No 7 are interesting as in this case the Police have reached a different conclusion to the Electoral Commission. And of course a Judge (if it ever went to court) could have reached a different conclusion also. Now the EFA is toast, we’ll never know where the fine line between an issue ad and a election ad is to be drawn.
Once again thanks to the Police for the OIA response. It is disappointing that not all cases are yet resolved, but as I understand it the officers on the electoral team has been seconded to other jobs at various times. This is one reason I still prefer that the electoral agencies can directly refer to court, rather than go through a spcialist agency, and also the Police. The Police will always struggle to treat electoral offences as a priority against other crimes.
Related posts:
- Two Electoral Commission decisions
- Anderton referred to Police
- Labour referred to the Police for Electoral Act breach
- Electoral Commission decisions on EFA complaints
May 29th, 2009 at 7:10 am
That’s great that people can publish a booklet consisting entirely of boos for Labour. Hoorah for Free Speech!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 7:56 am
“That’s great that people can publish a booklet consisting entirely of boos for Labour.”
And it’s surprising it had no promoter statement. I would have thought there’d be a queue.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:39 am
Is anybody surprised that the only ones prosecuted so far are not members of parliament?
Where is the royal commission of inquiry into corruption that this country so desperately needs?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:19 am
I hope that you’re being consistent:-
” Prosecuted…3. NZ First banners in Tauranga with no promoter statement
No 3 I am of course very interested in. Also to some degree with No 1.
Warning Given… Nicky Wagner for an advertisement not authorised and no promoter statement…
These all look reasonable sensible to deal with by warning.”
If it’s ok for Nicky Wagner, why not NZ First? Just asking…
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:34 am
“Dog registered to vote”
LOL!
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 9:52 am
The dog being registered to vote interested me.
Vote:Which way would the dog have voted as they have a paw record of political involvement and have been on the ruff end of political action.MP selection could be an issue as well with the need to vet prospective candidates ,ensure the barking mad bitches are ignored and the top dogs are not hounded out .
May 29th, 2009 at 10:43 am
“Cobb & Co Paraparaumu for an election advertisement supporting a party not approved by that party”
What happened there? What was Cobb and Co. doing promoting a party? Who knew Cobb and Co. still existed?
Edit: answered my own question
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 11:03 am
That’s appalling Mark, but would be somewhat hypocritical to give you a thumbs down since it’s so funny.
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 12:40 pm
It’s great to finally get all of this info from the Police. But surely the Police need to provide a bit more detail on some of their reasoning for not proceeding with prosecutions when the Electoral Commission was of the view that a breach appeared to have occurred.
For example, with the Northern EMA newspaper advertisement, the EC seemed to object to the big red stop sign being included in the ad and deemed this to make it an election advertisement. On what basis did the Police disagree?
Likewise, Jim Anderton’s newspaper advertisement in the Southland Times. The EC said this was an election advertisement, but the Police say that it wasn’t because it related to Anderton’s ministerial portfolio. Does this mean that political parties can publish unlimited political advertisements if they are in government and then just relate them to various ministerial positions?
This isn’t to say that I necessarily disagree with the decisions of the Police. But what was their methodology for determining what was an election advertisement and what was an issue advertisement? Although the EFA is dead and buried, these questions will have ongoing relevance as we go through further political finance reform. Currently these Police disagreements with the EC decisions, and with the possibility that – like DPF suggests – a judge might very easily disagree with either of the agencies of the state, makes the whole process rather absurd.
Bryce
Vote:http://www.liberation.org.nz
May 29th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Mark I’m on the dog’s side.
Probably contributes far more to the economy than the average beneficiary or “net” beneficiary. Why not let him or her vote?
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Ribbons on election day illegal.
I’d almost forgotten just how oppressive the EFA was… thanks for the timely reminder.
It’s odd how we still can’t be allowed to see so much as a billboard on election day, lest our mind suddenly be entirely changed by the cheesy smile and lame slogan of some candidate we’d previously rejected.
Australians cope not only with that, but with having to walk the gauntlet of party flunkies wearing rosettes, standing besides posters of their respective candidates, and thrusting “how to vote” cards into their hands. All without mental breakdown.
Oh, wait… they elected Kevin Rudd. No, I take it all back…
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Interesting comments Bryce. What I find especially interesting is that the police seem to have decided that they will be the ones who interpret the law, not the Courts. Hmmmm….
Vote:May 29th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Rex – that wasn’t the EFA. That prohibition was in the Electoral Act – and has been the law for perhaps a hundred years. It’s still there now – be careful if you’re in Mount Albert in a couple of weeks’ time!
Vote: