National MP also referred to Police for electoral breach

November 2nd, 2011 at 3:03 pm by David Farrar

Katie Chapman at Stuff reports:

National MP could be fined up to $40,000 after he allegedly broke election campaign rules.

The party’s campaign manager Jo de Joux confirmed Woodhouse, who is the Dunedin MP, was being dealt with by police after a complaint was received regarding two advertisements that did not carry promoter statements.

Everything a candidate puts out should pretty much have an authorisation statement. Could be an expensive lesson. The likely fine, if changed and found guilty, is a few hundred dollars.

Tags: ,

22 Responses to “National MP also referred to Police for electoral breach”

  1. BeaB (2,164 comments) says:

    Why do we keep creating these stupid rules and then behaving like the Stasi trying to spot who is breaking them?
    Treat us like adults and let candidates and parties do what they want! I wouldn’t mind being given a pamphlet as I enter the voting booth.
    If I am old enough to vote I am old enough to think for myself without all these restrictions. Just more useless work for more useless bureaucrats.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    Would be interesting to see if Woodhouse dobbed himself in. And to see the materiality of the breach compared with Labour’s consistent flouting of the law. If Woodhouse was more material, then I guess we’ve found the threshold, and all breaches below that should be made lawful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. PrincesStLabour (3 comments) says:

    You left out a paragraph:

    “But this is not a mistake, made in ignorance. [Woodhouse] ha[s] been told dozens of times … the law… [This is] arrogance that [he is] above the law. Look the breach is a minor one, but the principle is an important one.”

    – From a previous Kiwiblog post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Manolo (14,168 comments) says:

    I must agree with BeaB on those petty and pathetic rules. Just plain pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    @ PrincesStLabour

    Pretty sure National would take any punishment it was liable for if Labour would too. You scum are the worst. Break the law, lie, retrospectively change the law, change the election rules, and then have the gall and dishonour to claim the moral high ground in scenarios like this. I hope when grow up you grandchildren can’t look you in the eye without being ashamed of you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. ben (2,279 comments) says:

    So:

    Likely fine = $x00

    Media report = $40,000

    What have we learned kids?

    I’m surprised Katie didn’t throw in the jail term for triple homicide, equally relevant.

    Sorry. Having a bad media day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Michaels (1,233 comments) says:

    And yet Labour continue to stick their finger up to the law and get away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Bevan (3,232 comments) says:

    @PrincesStLabour, unlike you blokes who have never broken electoral law…. Yeah Right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. PaulL (5,449 comments) says:

    Yeah – much as it hurts, I’m with Princes st labour here. DPF has made a theme of attacking labour for any breaking of the electoral law. He can’t brush this aside quite that glibly. Sure, hd can point out this is a single junior candidate not systematic like labour, but he still needs to put a bit more stick into National.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. East Wellington Superhero (1,139 comments) says:

    I don’t think DPF is glibly brushing it aside.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    # BeaB (961) Says:
    November 2nd, 2011 at 3:20 pm


    Why do we keep creating these stupid rules and then behaving like the Stasi trying to spot who is breaking them?
    Treat us like adults and let candidates and parties do what they want! I wouldn’t mind being given a pamphlet as I enter the voting booth.
    If I am old enough to vote I am old enough to think for myself without all these restrictions. Just more useless work for more useless bureaucrats.

    I agree…. AND political parties should be able to promote themselves as much as they want on TV without having to use taxpayer dollars and without being limited in how much they can spend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Weihana (4,620 comments) says:

    # East Wellington Superhero (485) Says:
    November 2nd, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Would be interesting to see if Woodhouse dobbed himself in. And to see the materiality of the breach compared with Labour’s consistent flouting of the law. If Woodhouse was more material, then I guess we’ve found the threshold, and all breaches below that should be made lawful.

    or… how about this… just don’t break the rules. Or get rid of the rules. This nonsense about a supposed “threshold” just seems to me like you’ve got your partisan blinkers on. Oh and look, you do:


    “You scum are the worst.”
    “I hope when grow up you grandchildren can’t look you in the eye without being ashamed of you”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Rick Rowling (816 comments) says:

    HOWEVER, DPF posted on this. I guess we’ll be seeing red alert and the standard posting about next time labour breaks the law.

    Or not. I’m seeing more balance from DPF than elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. MT_Tinman (3,315 comments) says:

    I notice the quote is from Stuff.co.nz.

    Has the slime ever reported the multitude of Labour breaches?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    Oh come on folk, you know how this works. It’s not in the public interest to prosecute. Others were doing it too, the laws are confusing and it’s the way he has always done it. Move on.

    Now try that defense if you are not an MP. Try it for a parking ticket… a speeding ticket… theft as a servant… Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But those who write the law can’t be expected to understand it and shouldn’t be legally accountable under it. We say we have democracy – BS.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. scrubone (3,097 comments) says:

    Last election the Progressives got fined (if I recall correctly that was the outcome) because they didn’t put authorisations on some posters.

    I saw one, and it did have a statement. But it was so tiny that even standing right in front of it I couldn’t see it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. burt (7,425 comments) says:

    scrubone

    I don’t recall Jim saying in the lead up to the election that he might not give his vote unconditionally to Labour, guess he must have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Rich Prick (1,750 comments) says:

    This is one area of law I call an ass, and it is thanks to the last Labour Government. Are we such lemmings that a silly statement or lack thereof, will make us all vote irrationally (Labour Party supporters excepted for obvious reasons)? If that is truely the case, then we have no hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Clint Heine (1,495 comments) says:

    All this still pales in comparison to the blatant abuse of taxpayers money in 2005 when Labour overspent by $800k and then after digging out the collection plates made it illegal for people to spend their own money to counteract Labours illegal spending. Made worse by Helen and co then pillorising the EB for using their own money.

    I wished that after they voted out that nasty woman that Labour would start learning humility.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. wreck1080 (3,999 comments) says:

    I’d like to see a breakdown of labour infringements vs national —and which ones the police actually prosecuted.

    It just feels like the police ignore labour breaches but penalise national breaches.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. MT_Tinman (3,315 comments) says:

    Clint Heine (1,267) Says:
    November 3rd, 2011 at 5:44 am

    I wished that after they voted out that nasty woman that Labour would start learning humility.

    Yet another reason responsible adults prefer working towards things instead of the childish “wishing”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    Never met the man, but Michael Woodhouse can’t be the sharpest knife in the drawer to break well known rules.

    If we (quite rightly) criticize Labour for cocking up the electoral rules, we need to do the same when it is done by someone who really should know better.

    The “everyone does it” excuse, simply won’t wash. Woodhouse needs to man up and take his medicine.

    Just like the many Labour examples before him.

    Oh, oh….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote