[DPF: That is disingenous. Helen Clark and Labour kept insisting the pledge card was legal and the Auditor-General was wrong. In fact they even started smearing the Auditor-General]

I’m not sure what the smearing has to do with it. That was appalling, but not really related to what we are discussing. Was Darnton also seeking a declaration that the smears were unfounded?

Helen Clark and Labour may have kept insisting that the pledge card was illegal. If so, that was disingenuous. Because after insisting that, they then went and passed a law to make it legal. You don’t need a law to make something legal if it’s already legal. The simple fact is that Parliament accepted this was illegal, whatever the views of Helen Clark and the Labour Party.

[DPF: Parliament does not have a view. Laws get passed but views belong to people and the head of the Government was very firm that the Auditor-General was wrong, and the spending on the pledge card was legal. Now the Auditor-General is not infallible, and it would have been nice to allow the lawsuit (and amendments were voted down which would have stopped the lawsuit being wiped out by the validating legislation) so a Judge could officially rule on the legality of it]

What more could he hope for? deep breaths… deep breaths…. OK I get it, you are taking the piss

Kind of.

All Darnton wanted was a declaration that the pledge card was unlawful. He got a declaration that the pledge card was unlawful from Parliament. If the pledge card was lawful, then Parliament wouldn’t have passed a law validating it.

[DPF: That is disingenous. Helen Clark and Labour kept insisting the pledge card was legal and the Auditor-General was wrong. In fact they even started smearing the Auditor-General]

MPs’ perks are about to come under fresh scrutiny as a high-powered review quietly gets under way.

The review is taking place as MPs are embroiled in controversy over the use of taxpayer money for perks, including travel by themselves and their spouses. It is required by law after every election, meaning MPs had no control over its timing.

But it was officially confirmed in a statement by Speaker Lockwood Smith only yesterday, after the review committee had already met for the first time and despite it being widely known that former speaker Sir Doug Kidd had been appointed to lead it.

The appointment of Sir Doug, an MP of 24 years standing, is controversial – the last review was headed by an outsider, businessman John Goulter.

Mr Goulter’s 2007 report angered MPs when it recommended an overhaul of the perks system and questioned spouses getting free travel on the taxpayer. Many of his recommendations were ignored.

Sir Doug said yesterday he was not going to discuss the review and one of the first decisions the committee had made was not to talk to the media.

He also declined to comment on whether it was appropriate for a former MP to head the review. “I’m not going to enter into discussion on that … You will have to judge things by the result.” He is being assisted by economist Philip Barry.

The review comes as MPs are under more scrutiny than ever before since a series of scandals over perks, including their accommodation allowances and travel subsidies for overseas trips.

ACT leader and Local Government Minister Rodney Hide has paid back more than $20,000 used when he took his girlfriend, Louise Crome, on trips to Hawaii and Europe.

Finance Minister Bill English has also repaid money claimed in ministerial accommodation allowances on his family home.

At the weekend, Prime Minister John Key did not rule out asking Dr Smith to look at revamping MPs’ perks, saying there was “merit” in the idea. But a spokesman for Mr Key said yesterday that it was not the prime minster’s intention to do so at the moment.

Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei, who has called for an independent review of MPs’ allowances and perks, said she was comfortable with a former Speaker and MP heading the review.

It was useful to have someone in charge who understood the system and how Parliamentary Service operated.

It had been seven years since Sir Doug had been in Parliament so she did not believe he would be too close to the process.

Not on subject but just thought you would like to know what’s being done by our constitutional representatives behind closed doors.

But when Margaret Wilson was Attorney-General, she was terrible. Her idea of consultation was to send a letter out Friday notifying the name of the person she proposes to have Cabinet appoint on Monday.

Yes.

How surprising.

What a bitch.

Personally, I think the only constitutional law we need is that if anyone fucks with our constitution, as determined by a binding Citizen Initiated Referendum returning more than 70% in assent, they are subjected to a tax of 100% of their gross taxpayer-funded earnings received over their lifetime of employment. Total sum payable within 7 days after which standard IRD employer PAYE penal tax rates apply.

How else do you deal with constitutional scum like this bitch?

[DPF: But the validating legislation did prevent the Darnton v Clark lawsuit which could have found the pledge card funding by Parliament was a breach of the Public Finance Act]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with electoral law, or the failure of police during the 2005 election to take alleged breaches of electoral law seriously.

I would also note that the only reason you’d want validating legislation is if you accept that there is a breach of the Public Finance Act. Passing a law to remedy the breach wasn’t an end-run around Darnton v Clark, so much as an agreement that he was right. The Government and Parliament accepted that Darnton was correct, so they passed a law to fix it up. What more could he hope for?

I will not argue with that. How about this;

Charles voted in parliament to use Labour’s interpretation of the intent of the law rather than the Auditor General’s interpretation that the law had been breached by several parties.

OK, so what is Charles suggesting, that we vest the power to investigate with a parliamentary authority… What like the AG perhaps? What is going to stop the govt de-jour flipping the bird to any authority that it has the power to legislate away (unless that authority is the same one that enforces public order). Talk is cheap for change when the mechanisms we have are unchecked and we do not have a written constitution.

Charles … voted for parliament to decide that Labour didn’t breach electoral funding laws.

Not true, Burt.

Section 6 of the Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill read:

6 Act does not affect criminal liability

Nothing in this Act affects the criminal liability of any person.

The reason Mike Smith, Heather Simpson and others in the Labour Party weren’t prosecuted was police incompetence, not Labour’s legislation.

[DPF: But the validating legislation did prevent the Darnton v Clark lawsuit which could have found the pledge card funding by Parliament was a breach of the Public Finance Act]

CHARLES CHAUVEL (Labour) :

There is also the police, and I will speak a little bit about their function, because the police are the enforcement body as far as our electoral law is concerned.

Charles you tell lies… you as a Labour son of a bitch voted for parliament to decide that Labour didn’t breach electoral funding laws. What a shame this “shining star” of Labour can’t even remember how he helped dictator Helen override the conventions of parliament when it suited her.