Labour referred to the Police for Electoral Act breach
July 10th, 2011 at 11:00 am by David FarrarLabour says:
The Electoral Commission advised the Labour Party late yesterday that it believes the party breached the recently-amended Electoral Act over the party’s Stop Asset Sales Flyer, says Labour spokesperson Grant Robertson.
This is no surprise. It was an obvious election advertisement. It is important to realise that it would also have been deemed an election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Act and the pre-EFA Electoral Act.
Grant Robertson says there is no suggestion Labour has breached the use of Parliamentary resources or taxpayer funding, but the Commission is concerned that the words “authorised by” were not included in an explicit promoter statement.
A red herring. The Electoral Commission is concerned with the Electoral Act, not parliamentary funding. It is correct that up until 26 August the ad can be funded out of Labour’s parliamentary budget, but that is not the issue.
“Labour had taken the view that the flyer was not an election advertisement under the Act, in part because it had received prior authorization from the Parliamentary Service for its publication”, Grant Robertson said.
I’m sorry but this is just bullshit, and it is the same bullshit Labour have pushed since 2005. In 2005 Labour justified their over-spending by claiming they thought the law meant if it was taxpayer funded it was not an election advertisement. They were wrong then, and they were wrong now. But this is not a mistake, made in ignorance. They have been told dozens of times this is not the law. They had MPs sit on the select committee that considered the law. The Electoral Commission has stated in big bold letters multiple times that something may be an election advertisement even if taxpayer funded.
So this is not an accidental breach of the law. This is a continuation of six years of arrogance that they are above the law. Look the breach is a minor one, but the principle is an important one.
The new law even allows a party to get an opinion from the Electoral Commission on whether a particular advertisement is an election advertisement and needs authorisation. This is a free service. Labour chose not to get an opinion and chose to break the law.
This is why the Police should finally do something they have never ever done before – and prosecute Labour for one of the electoral law breaches. It is a minor breach and it should be a fine only, but how on earth can you expect others to obey the law when Labour consistently get away with breaking it.
Related posts:
- Labour referred to Police – again
- Are Labour’s ads in breach of the Electoral Act?
- Labour escapes referral on YouTube breach
- Labour breaching electoral law
July 10th, 2011 at 11:13 am
I agree entirely, DPF. But I dont think the police will do anything. And so the arrogance and contempt will continue. People are being prosected averyday for trivial offences — many of them by infiringment notices — yet there is a growing perception that political parties, Labour in particular, are either exempt or have some immunity from prosecution. This is exactly the reason why we have such diviseness in NZ. It is not just racial or rich/poor; left/right. It is the all too prevalent perception that there are rules for some and rules for others. The police should be compelled to prosecute to restore some semblance of integrity.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 11:13 am
Have the police got the balls?
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 11:19 am
Jimbob – maybe Judith could lend them her spare pair.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 11:27 am
So poor old Grant Robertson drew the short straw to “defend” this latest rort.
Where is the “campaign director ” or what ever his title is, training for his bloody bikeride.
Trev the muss was so full of it when it was in full swing on the roadside but is he now having flashbacks to his earlier appearance in the dock, that was an image for all time..
Throw the book at the devious pricks, their arrogance is mind boggling.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 11:32 am
It had better be nothing more than a fine. That’s all the offence carries.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 11:40 am
I hope the police do prosecute for once
What would be good would be for a charity to be set up to fund lawsuits against party’s (all party’s, not just Labour, but I imagine Labour would be the main victims) that break electoral finance laws.
Once the culture of impunity ends maybe they will think twice in future about these things
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 11:51 am
Where are the dog whistlers who bleated on KB that Whale’s expose may have been baseless? Hah!
Labour have long held the arrogant view that, if they do it, its OK but if anyone else was to do it…. then look out. Maybe this arrogance was due to the fact they had lapdog appointees in many of the ‘right’ roles. Hopefully, they will be investigated and if guilty, they will be fined.
The message really need to get through – no-one should be above the Law. No chance of Labour passing retrospective legislation in this case…
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 12:05 pm
Haha – This is beautiful. Whale has pwned milkmilo on his blog (www.gotcha.co.nz): “A week ago I blogged about a NewstalkZB story that wasn’t online and to which I had obtained a transcript. Over at Farrar’s some pinko scum scoffed that I had made the story up. They should know by now that when i put something on my blog I have very, very good sources”. The posts by said pinko:
mikenmild (1,032) Says: July 7th, 2011 at 9:49 am
I’d be interested to see if this story is confirmed. Can’t find any reference to it so far. Did the whale imagine it?
mikenmild (1,032) Says: July 7th, 2011 at 9:51 am
… Slater’s made the allegation. I’m just saying that I can’t find it reported anywhere.
mikenmild (1,032) Says: July 7th, 2011 at 10:23 am
… I’m not alleging anything; Slater is. Maybe I’m too thick, but after finding no reference on Stuff, NewstalkZB, Scoop or the Herald, I just started to wonder if it was a story at all. I’d hate to joining the ‘wailing’ on this without cause.
mikenmild (1,032) Says: July 7th, 2011 at 11:37 am
Can we call this one busted? Or is it being covered up by the socialist MSM?
PWNED!
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 12:16 pm
Bugger – Whale beat me to it.
The key point to remember is that one must still retain faith in the MSM. If they choose not to cover a story, or to cover it only once or twice on page A2 or A18, then we should trust their judgement in selectivity, not to mention their capabilities in investigative journalism.
I defy you to produce a peer-reviewed, scholarly, analysis backed by comprehensive statistics that shows otherwise.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
If the Police don’t prosecute then the other parties should accept that they too have licence to break the law and the right to expect that they won’t be penalised for so doing.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 12:40 pm
The Police have to prosecute, or everyone will start doing it. The socialists contempt for the rules is not surprising. Their SOP is: What works for us is good.
cheers
David Prosser
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 1:19 pm
They are still running those signs over at Red Alert.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 2:21 pm
Anyone seen mikenmild this arvo? Pwned!!
And don’t forget; a new broom has swept through Police National HQ; I would not be at all surprised if a prosecution ensues.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 2:55 pm
I will be a stunned mullet if the outlaw Labour Party are prosecuted in any shape of form.
Vote:as mentioned above, if they don’t get done then all parties should be able to do the same
July 10th, 2011 at 3:42 pm
Labour are lose/lose here – not being prosecuted reminds every one that they have broke the law multiple times and not been prosecuted; get prosecuted and lose they are branded as cheats.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 4:06 pm
But the people who support Labour dont care about the rules.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 4:30 pm
These thieving socialists are used to get away with murder. It’s about time the situation changes for the better, and the Police act firmly.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 4:52 pm
I agree the police must act. It’s about time Labour cleaned up their foolish act up. How many police hours have been wasted on the criminal antics of a political party still living in the Clark delusion that they are above the law. Corruption by public servants should not be tolerated by the kiwi taxpayer.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Elaycee/IV2
You might not remember me acknowledging this the other day. Elaycee felt that it had been covered up by the socialist mainstream media.
So, again, I’m very sorry for not trusting the Whale.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 5:10 pm
“This is why the Police should finally do something they have never ever done before – and prosecute Labour for one of the electoral law breaches.”
Of course “Labour” won’t be prosecuted because, as DPF well knows, there is no political party liability under the Electoral Act. Rather, the prosecution will be of the leaflet’s “promoter” as an individual.
[DPF: Yes indeed. A pity there is no party liability as working out the individual responsible could be challenging and a reason the Police don't prosecute]
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 5:35 pm
Rewrite the law to deal with the issue AG highlights
Oh and Grant Robertson demonstrates that far from being ‘ New Labour’ he is very much ‘Old Labour’
plus ca change etc
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 5:38 pm
It’s called plausible deniability.
Glad to see it’s endorsed by both Andrew Geddis and Dick Cheney.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Elaycee @ 12.05pm
You know, I always thought your obsession with mikenmind was very sad and a little bit weird, but that’s just plain creepy.
S-T-A-L-K-E-R!!
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
@bc – Haha – I’ve been called a few things in my time, but that’s a first!
Its just that the moron has prompted a permanent alert on my bullshit radar.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 5:59 pm
Anyway – TV News shortly.
Vote:Do you think this will be the lead item? No?
Second? No?
After the break? No?
Not at all? Maybe.
We may be surprised… but then again, pigs may fly too…
July 10th, 2011 at 6:00 pm
I thought the folowing quote from the Scoop article would make it easy enough to identify the promotor?
“Despite the absence of a formal promoter statement, the pamphlet did include in a prominent way the name and contact details of the party leader, so there could be no doubt as to its author,” Grant Robertson said.
I presume the claim would be author and promotor are different entities?
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:03 pm
Actually Elaycee, I stand corrected. The creepiest comment of the week comes from a question Lee C asked DPF a couple of days ago:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2011/07/general_debate_8_july_2011.html#comments
I’m sure you will be able to find it!! (Shudder)
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:08 pm
From a quick scan of the Electoral Act, it seems Labour could be up for a fine of $10,000.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Bring back hanging.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
“From a quick scan of the Electoral Act, it seems Labour could be up for a fine of $10,000.”
As above, no. “Labour” is not up for anything.
Under section 204F of the Electoral Act,
“(1) A person may publish or cause or permit to be published an election advertisement only if the advertisement includes a promoter statement.
(2) A promoter statement referred to in subsection (1) must state the name and address of the promoter of the election advertisement.
…
(7) A person who wilfully contravenes any of subsections (1) to (6) is guilty of an illegal practice.”
SO, the questions are, (1) which individual within Labour “publish[ed] or cause[d] or permitt[ed] to be published” this particular advertisement? and (2) did they “wilfully contravene” the requirement to include a promoter statement? With regards the second question, does “wilfully contravene” mean publish without a statement on it knowing that one is required (which Labour appears to be claiming was not the case), or does it simply mean publish knowing you don’t have a statement on it?
Note also, if it was Labour’s party secretary who “publish[ed] or cause[d] or permitt[ed] to be published”, then she is liable for a fine of up to $40,000 (see s.224(1)). If it is anyone else, they are liable for a fine of up to $10,000 (see s.224(3)).
Let me also endorse DPF’s comment on my comment – there should be party liability for these sorts of offences.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
“Bring back hanging”.
Actually, I’m inclined to revert to a more sporting style of punishment. Stocks really do have appeal because it encourages community involvement. Tomatoes are the most appropriate missile with the severity of the offence being recognised by the degree to which they are frozen.
Drawing and quartering might be a bit hard to get off the ground given the likelihood that SPCA would object to the use of horses.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:46 pm
Zulu’s comment suggests Grant Robertson is pointing the Police to Phil Goff.
Surely noT!!!!!
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
AG
Thanks for that. I guess there are two things. Will the Police actually take a prosecution and, if so, is there one individual that it can be pinned on?
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 6:57 pm
@bc – you’re one sick puppy. Fancy remembering that!
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
mikenmild,
The police won’t bring a prosecution UNLESS they can pin it to an individual … which can be tricky in the case of an ad that is designed and put into circulation by a number of different people. Which is why the organisation should be held responsible for the failure. But, at the moment it isn’t.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Poor Milktoast, totally discredited and humiliated.
Does this mean you are going to disappear for weeks on end like Luc Hansen does?
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
Hurf
Nah, I’m still here. No worries. Thanks for your interest.
AG
Yes, would be nice to be able to find a political party responsible. Not likely though.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 7:22 pm
Bugger the fine. Let me see a pack of Labour leaders in orange jumpsuits out doing community service. I’d trade the popcorn for tomatoes.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 7:36 pm
Let me also endorse DPF’s comment on my comment – there should be party liability for these sorts of offences.
If party liability was a deduction of x% of their party vote it could make a difference. The strongest currency in politics in election year is votes.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Can’t the Labour Party be treated as a criminal organisation like a gang for this type of group offending?
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 8:09 pm
Good! I hate it when people shrink away from their rampaging failure. Makes it less fun.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Off topic
Adolf just watched the end of the John Wayne movie “Sea Chase.”
In the credits was this gem:-
David Farrar as Cmd. Jeff Napier
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 8:14 pm
I don’t think a bright red tie counts as a gang patch.
Vote:July 10th, 2011 at 8:58 pm
Can someone remind the MPs that by convention MPs cannot say the law was confusing… They voted to enact so they must have understood it.
I know it’s just a convention and convention means noting when the best interests of the Labour party at at risk… but is NZ a democracy or not ?
Vote:July 11th, 2011 at 8:42 am
@ Adolf, He also plays Xerxes in the 1962 classic the 300 Spartans
Vote:July 11th, 2011 at 11:37 am
so Grant Robertson has said they have done nothing wrong and Chuck Chavaul said the made an error??
Vote:July 11th, 2011 at 12:12 pm
Labour never learn from their mistakes because they never admit to making them.
After their 2008 election loss they began their journey through the 5 steps of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance.
I put them somewhere between denial and anger at the moment. Still a long way to go.
Vote: