Conservative Party candidates referred to Police

April 17th, 2013 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The has announced:

On 15 April 2013, the Electoral Commission referred and , of New Zealand candidates at the 2011 general election, to Police for filing a false Candidate Election Expenses and Donations Return.

It is an offence under section 205N of the Erlectoral Act 1993 for a candidate to file a false return.

The Electoral Commission has also referred Larry Baldock for paying, or arranging another person to pay, election expenses in excess of the $25,000 maximum specified in section 205C of the Electoral Act 1993.  This is an offence under section 205F of the Act.

This is quite rare. Reading between the lines it looks like some election expenses were not declared, and in the case of Baldock those expenses would have put him over the $25,000 limit.

Baldock stood for Tauranga and got 1,512 votes or 4.2%. Peter Redman stood for Bay of Plenty and got 1,306 votes or 3.7%.

Peter Redman declared no donations and $42 of expenses.

Baldock declared a donation of $24,900 from the Conservative Party and $24,900 of expenses so I’d say it is about some sort of undeclared expense. Maybe it was a joint advertisement for Baldock and Redman and they attributed it all to the party, rather than to each candidate? We’ll find out in due course.

Of course the Police may do nothing, as is often the case. No Right Turn undiplomatically puts it like this:

Of course, we know what will happen: the police will take the complaint, and then forget about it, just as they have with virtually every other complaint referred to them by the Electoral Commission. The police simply don’t care about electoral law. If you steal a television, they’ll throw you in jail. Try to steal an election, and they ignore it.

As they did with Labour in 2005.

This is not the first time the Conservative Party has had issues with its returns. I blogged on these last May.

UPDATE: This NZ Herald story has more details on what may be the issue.

Also of interest to me is that Baldock got only 206 votes more than Redman despite Baldock spending the maximum $25,000 and Redman basically zero. This reinforces again to me that advertising has only a minor impact on votes.

Tags: , , ,

17 Responses to “Conservative Party candidates referred to Police”

  1. RRM (9,605 comments) says:

    Dirty commie-infested MSM trying to smear and discredit The Conservative Party and our hero Kolun Kwaig AGAIN eh?

    Oh, the infamy. When will it ever end?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Pete George (23,165 comments) says:

    Peter Redman stood for Bay of Plenty and got 1,306 votes or 3.7%.

    Peter Redman declared no donations and $42 of expenses.

    $42 of expenses is very low, almost no expenses. It’s possible some candidates spend little or nothing – but getting 1306 votes suggests some sort of profile or promoting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. lazza (362 comments) says:

    So what about himself Colin? Sleazey! Slim Dave said…

    “It is worth noting that Craig was open about the fact he was bankrolling the campaign for the party he leads. However that doesn’t mean one can ignore the rules. What Colin Craig should have done is set up a bank account for the Conservatives from the moment it was registered, donated the money to them upfront, and then have the party pays bill directly and disclose his donation within 10 working days. The way he has gone about it, has not been clean. Private companies should not be paying bills on behalf a registered political parties, and the loan should have been treated as a donation from the start as there was never any possibility of significant repayment.”

    Dodgy, Sleazy, Illegal (you choose). Add this to his (Christian!) pose. All BS … like when it came to jiggering the poll of his related survey party company produced in the Rodney electorate. He said it showed majority support for HIM. Wot? … he lost to Mark Mitchell by 15,000 votes. In spite of his puritanical obsequious demeanour he is not to be trusted . You have been warned.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. hubbers (230 comments) says:

    What’s the point? The police don’t consider this a crime.

    Fill your boot crooked candidates you can do what the f*** you like in NZ because the cops don’t give a shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (7,870 comments) says:

    pete g

    how many votes did you get?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Barnsley Bill (982 comments) says:

    Wholesale fraud and thievery is the hallmark of Kiwi elections.
    Clark changed the law retrospectively to avoid court for STEALING taxpayers funds.
    Indians in Auckland created voters out of thin air to support their Labour candidates. Still no convictions.

    But keep reading here, DPF will happily walk himself to the noose by promoting all manner of voting methods to make it easier for the left to cheat, swindle and fraudulently win office.
    Photo id and you must turn up on polling day to a polling station within your electorate is the only way we should allow voting in NZ. That would eliminate most of the cheating.
    Start actually prosecuting candidates who swindle the spending rules and we might see a bit more respect from the voters as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Pete George (23,165 comments) says:

    kowtow, not that it’s relevant, but I forked out a lot more per vote than Redman did (based on returns) and I have some experience in knowing how difficult it is for low profile candidates from small parties to get any attention and votes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Paulus (2,544 comments) says:

    Baldock from Tauranga has always been a stupid jerk when he was/is in local politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. burt (7,948 comments) says:

    But others were doing it too… It’s not fair to just prosecute one person/party when it’s the way they have always done it… What other relevant Labour party excuses might be applicable ???

    It’s a complete farce …

    I smell retrospective validations on the way and a press release saying we need to move on … Or perhaps they will get the same severe punishment Winston got – they might be required to re-file their returns… Ohhh… nasty punishment … oh the pain of re-doing paperwork !!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. iMP (2,312 comments) says:

    It’s commendable Colin Craig and the Conservatives are being so upfront and transparent about this (John Banks and ACT???). As I read the Herald follow-up, the issue seems to be maths and how much actual run time of specific ads were attributed to which candidates. So, this looks like a radio studio issue. Both men appear to have adjusted their returns accordingly. Storm in teacup.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. scrubone (3,074 comments) says:

    Paulus, unfortunately I agree. I recall going to a meeting where Baldock calmly announced that he had an electorate where he stood a good chance of winning. Then he announced he would be standing in Tauranga, which at the time was about to enter a clash of titans (well, sort of) as Winston tried to regain his old seat. My jaw literally dropped at the sheer stupidity of the man.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Shazzadude (516 comments) says:

    “Also of interest to me is that Baldock got only 206 votes more than Redman despite Baldock spending the maximum $25,000 and Redman basically zero. This reinforces again to me that advertising has only a minor impact on votes.”

    They got 2.6% (about as much as ACT, United Future and Mana combined) despite being as new as they were, and with no incumbent MPs, or any high profile candidates. That was purely because of the advertising spend.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Nick K (1,102 comments) says:

    It’s commendable Colin Craig and the Conservatives are being so upfront and transparent about this…

    Commendable? WTF?? They got caught!! It would have been commendable had they offered themselves up for prosecution before being busted.

    They are not the CONservative Party for nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Griff (6,966 comments) says:

    our hero Kolun Kwaig

    Is he like the last F undie hero ?

    Graham “the kiddys asked for it” Capill

    Will it be kolun “I was only trying to understand arse sex” Kwaig

    We await the inevitable disclosure of serial sodomy and the demise of another branch of the church of do as I say not as I do Christian hypocrisy.

    I let bejusus the zombie into my life.
    Now I eat him every sinday.
    Nothing says pure love like ritual cannibalism for God

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. bringbackdemocracy (412 comments) says:

    In 2005 the Clark led Labour party took $800,000 of tax-payer money to finance it’s election campaign. In doing this they also overspent the spending limit for a political party by $400,000. This was defined as a corrupt practice in the electoral act.
    A complaint was made to the police, who decided it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. burt (7,948 comments) says:

    Bringbackdemocracy

    Clark – NZ’s first retrospectively validated PM…. The dim-bulb followers of a failed ideology still think she’s the best PM this country has ever had – shows how corrupted their ideology is eh.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Kea (11,878 comments) says:

    bringbackdemocracy (185) Says:
    April 17th, 2013 at 5:46 pm
    In 2005 the Clark led Labour party took $800,000 of tax-payer money to finance it’s election campaign. In doing this they also overspent the spending limit for a political party by $400,000. This was defined as a corrupt practice in the electoral act.
    A complaint was made to the police, who decided it wasn’t in the public interest to prosecute!!!!!!

    So that makes two of us who remember. A disgraceful time in our nations history. The Act was passed to persecute a religious minority and prevent people supporting opposition parties. Klarks criminal breaches of her own law were not followed up by police, who themselves are tainted as a result.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.