Is the taxpayer funding Mallard and Little’s legal fees

June 27th, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

has stated she is paying for her own expenses in the suit against and . She had the option of applying for taxpayer funding, but chose not to.

Has anyone confirmed whether or not the taxpayer is funding the legal costs for Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little? It would certainly be within the rules, for them to be funded  out of David Shearer’s parliamentary budget – but have they chosen to do so?

If they lose, and have to pay Collins’ legal expenses (she is not seeking damages, just a declaration and costs) will that also be funded by the taxpayer?

Tags: , , , ,

27 Responses to “Is the taxpayer funding Mallard and Little’s legal fees”

  1. RRM (8,988 comments) says:

    Why is the sky blue?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    Methinks the question is a rhetorical one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. alloytoo (337 comments) says:

    Mallard hasn’t tried to scalp tickets to trial yet? (To recover costs of course)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    Another question regarding Mallard: Did he pay tax on the profit from his ticket sales?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. DaveDustin (13 comments) says:

    Did Andrew Little file is statement of Defense yesterday as required?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. themono (129 comments) says:

    “Both MPs have indicated they would pay for their own defence in any legal proceedings”

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/6680854/Collins-to-fund-defamation-action

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Alan Johnstone (908 comments) says:

    “Another question regarding Mallard: Did he pay tax on the profit from his ticket sales?”

    Sorry, did i miss the new capital gains tax ?

    My understanding is he’d only be liable for tax, if he bought them with the clear intention of reselling them, but i’m not a tax lawyer so could be wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    themono … just because’ they’ said it doesn’t mean it’s true. Labour pollies have been known to tell lies ….. and that’s what the defamation is all about – Mallard and Little telling lies. Shearer needs to confirm that none of the bulk (taxpayer) funding provided to Labour is being used. His silence is deafening.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    Alan J>Sorry, did i miss the new capital gains tax ?

    Surely if you’re doing it on a regular basis then you’d be classified as a dealer. Surely second hand dealers and car dealers have to pay tax on their profits?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Alan Johnstone (908 comments) says:

    Depends if the tickets were purchased with the intent of a resale.

    The IRD would have to demonstrate intent. It’s difficult to do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. peterwn (2,932 comments) says:

    AFAIK Helen Clark did not personally pay damages and costs for the defamation suit that surgeon took against her in 1999. I thought it was the abour Party who coughed up then.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (8,723 comments) says:

    Does anyone really care if the Labour Party meets their costs or not? Even though they have said that they will meet their own costs (obviously not clearly enough for Ross Miller), who care what kind of political action the party money funds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. RightNow (6,336 comments) says:

    mm, I kind of care, in that I think if there’s no risk (i.e. they can lose the case but still incur no material consequences to themselves) then it sends a signal that politicians can act with impunity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    Alan Johnstone

    It’s the other way round. If IRD became aware of and assed the profit Mallard would have to prove lack of intent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. mikenmild (8,723 comments) says:

    RN
    If the party is paying though, then it is the party that would call the shots, so I wouldn’t see that as too much of a risk.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. alex (298 comments) says:

    I’m not normally one to defend Mallard and Little, but its not like they brought the defamation suit to court. As such, it isn’t really an issue whether the taxpayer pays.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Keeping Stock (9,787 comments) says:

    Surely you jest Alex? If Mallard and Little had been more tempered in their comments where, outside of Parliament they alleged that Judith Collins acted in a certain way, they would not be being sued for defamation. Actions have consequences, and you and I should not have to pick up the bill for MP’s who act out of malice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Manolo (12,614 comments) says:

    It’s highly probable, almost a certainty, that the pair of wimpy socialists Little and Mallard, are using public funds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. mikenmild (8,723 comments) says:

    If this is being funded from the Labour Party’s parliamentary funding so what? That money is spent on a wide range of political purposes, so what’s the big deal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. dime (8,746 comments) says:

    mike – really????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    thank you Milkenmild for confirming that it’s ok for them to use taxpayer money to defend themselves even when they said they weren’t. Funny set of values. Guess it goes with your territory

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Tauhei Notts (1,508 comments) says:

    Keeping Stock
    Exactly correct!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mikenmild (8,723 comments) says:

    Ross – you are the one claiming that they are probably using their parliamentary funds for this despite saying they would not. All I have asked is why should anyone care about which particular political activity is supported by a party’s parliamentary funding. So far as I am concerned they could equally use the funding for a court case, collecting petition signatures, travel to a conference, hiring another journalist to write press releases, etc, etc. What’s the big deal?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PaulL (5,774 comments) says:

    mikenmild: the law might disagree. I believe there are rules about what parliamentary funding can and cannot be used for, and “political activity” is not the definition. But I don’t think that definition restricts defence of court cases, so no suggestion this is a legal issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mikenmild (8,723 comments) says:

    PaulL -yes, there are a whole lot of nonsensical rules about this funding which allows some bloggers to huff and puff about various ways inwhich the parties put the money to work.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Mark (1,301 comments) says:

    Very mischievous question. Both have stated they are going to pay their own costs. Farrar is trying to imply they are lying. Create doubt and obfuscate. Farrar you should Be in the house your talents are being wasted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    mikenmild … so, a simple statement from Shearer would clear this all up … why the deafening silence?

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.