Kiwiblog

Graeme Edgeler at Public Address blogs:

If these count as donations (and both Labour, and the Electoral Commission appear to accept they do), then each of the sums above created a separate obligation of disclosure, with 10 working days allowed after each to declare it. The failure to do so within that time period, on each of the four occasions is (unless the Party Secretary has a “reasonable excuse”) a separate offence, carrying a maximum fine of $40,000.

So what about the reasonable excuse? Labour claims it was unsure whether or not a bequest counts as a donation. Edgeler points out:

So I do not consider this is as clear as others believe. However, despite my doubts, I have no sympathy for the Labour Party.

I simply cannot accept “confusion” as an explanation. Being confused about this means you received the money and thought about it whether it had to be disclosed, and just couldn’t make up your mind for certain either way. In a situation like this, if you think you may have a legal obligation to do something, and are confused, the thing you do is check. If the reason the two Labour Party Secretaries involved (Chris Flatt at the time of the first three payments, and Tim Barnett at the time of the last payment) didn’t declare these payments as donations was because they were “confused” about whether it was required then what they’ve realised that what they’re (not) doing may be an offence, but have chosen to run the risk.

I call bullshit on the claim they were confused. If you are confused, then you seek advice. Graeme’s advice would have been:

I am happy to provide you with a legal opinion if you really want, but why do you care? Just file a disclosure anyway, and save yourself some money. At the very least, just call up the Electoral Commission and ask. If they say you a bequest doesn’t count as a donation, then don’t file a return, but otherwise, what’s the harm? 

All Labour had to do was e-mail the Electoral Commission and ask them.

Newstalk ZB’s Felix Marwick apparently has confirmation that the Electoral Commission won’t be referring these matters to the Police, which has disappointed a number of people. There is nothing to stop individuals laying complaints with the police, and I suspect a number will, although it seems unlikely police will pursue charges.

Someone should complain to the Police, and if the Police don’t act, then a private prosecution sounds a good idea.

I don’t know the reasons for the Commission’s decision, but the view that it would be wrong to hold an individual responsible for whatever failure happened in this case (when it may have been someone else’s fault) may factor. This possibility shows, I think, one of the flaws in our electoral law. For something like this, there will often be no reason to sheet responsibility to an individual for a failure like this. The law should allow political parties to be charged directly, not sheet home responsibility only to party secretaries.

I agree, it should be Labour facing a fine, not their former or current general secretaries.

Jody O’Callaghan at Stuff reports:

Secrecy surrounding disciplining teachers is under scrutiny by MPs, with a lawyer asking that teachers face as much transparency as doctors and lawyers.

Not unreasonable.

Wellington barrister Graeme Edgeler’s complaint about the Teachers Council’s blanket suppression on disciplinary decisions was heard by a parliamentary select committee yesterday.

Teachers Council rules state that no-one, media or otherwise, can publish details of a decision on a teacher’s bad conduct. The council argues that that avoids deterring victims, particularly children, from coming forward to give evidence.

But Mr Edgeler said the presumption should always be openness.

“These rules are wrong. It’s the Teachers Council taking upon itself something that Parliament should be doing and has done in other situations.”

The Regulations Review Committee can effectively rescind the regulation made by the Teachers Council. Hopefully the Council will amend its own rules but …

Teachers Council director Peter Lind said: “Changing the rules . . . could have the unintended consequence of people, particularly children, not coming forward to give evidence.”

Oh nonsense. You really think that the 12 year old lid won’t tell their parents about something bad a teacher did because they’re aware of the rules around name suppression that the Teachers Council has?

PPTA president Angela Roberts said the suppression of disciplinary details was to protect vulnerable victims, particularly in small communities.

Oh, yes of course it is. To protect the victims. How about you don’t name the victims, but do name the teachers.

The point Edgeler is making is that a blanket rule is wrong. Sure if the teacher is the sole teacher in a small school of 10 pupils, then you might consider name suppression is necessary to protect the victims. But you don’t need a blanket rule, such as the Council has. Suppression should be the exception – not the rule.

Graeme Edgeler blogs:

I read David Farrar’s post on the secrecy with which the New Zealand Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal conducts its hearings, and, like David, was disturbed with what I read in Kathryn Powley’s Herald on Sunday article. The Teachers Council Disciplinary Tribunal doesn’t just claim a power to suppress sensitive information, but rather has rules which automatically suppress all information, instead allowing people to seek official permission before publishing particular information.

David observed that “…the rule should be repealed or amended. If the Council won’t do so, then the enabling legislation should be amended.”

My first thought was to comment in agreement with his general observation: secrecy should not be the default position. My second, to point out that his proposed solution of amending the enabling legislation was excessive, when you could just ask Parliament to vote to disallow, or amend the rule – it’s the rule, not the primary legislation, that is the problem.

For some reason I thought the power of regulations review was about regulations made by Cabinet or core Government departments. But it seems not. So Graeme has taken action:

So instead of just writing a blog post, what follows below is a complaint I sent to Parliament’s Regulations Review Committee yesterday evening.

Any member of Parliament can move a motion to amend, or disallow a regulation, but the Regulations Review Committee is empowered to inquire into subordinate legislation, and a successful complaint to that Committee is a good way to get the rest of Parliament to take notice of your concerns. It operates on a more consensual basis than ordinary select committees, but the individual members of the Committee (currently three National and two Labour), have a special power that other members of Parliament don’t have. If one of them moves a motion of disallowance, the House has to vote on it, or the motion succeeds.

So if one or more members of that committee move to disallow the regulation, then it will be automatically disallowed unless the House schedules time to debate the motion.

It will be very interesting to see what happens. Will the Teachers Council amend their rule before the Regulations Review Committee considers the rule?

For the geeks, Graeme Edgeler asks and answers them. I like this one.

Well, how would you surreptitiously distort an election?

Nominations having closed, I don’t feel too bad announcing this one more broadly now.

My favoured method involves getting a terminally ill person (perhaps more than one, just to be “safe”), to run in the anchor electorate of a sub-5% party (e.g. Epsom). If an electorate candidate (even an independent) dies between the close of nominations, and the close of voting, the election for that electorate is cancelled (resulting in a by-election), and only the party votes count. That seat couldn’t then be used to get that party (e.g. ACT) into parliament by avoiding the 5% threshold, potentially swinging a close election. And as that person doesn’t need to have any formal affiliation to a party (they might claim to be doing it as a stunt to raise awareness about some aspect of the health system), you might be able to get away with it.

This is a rule we really don’t need, and I’m guessing it’s a hangover from first past the post. Which, to be honest, doesn’t need it either. Given that you’re having an election anyway, let people vote, and if the dead candidate wins, then have a by-election.

I tend to agree. If the US can elect dead politicians, so can we.

Graeme Edgeler at Public Address has put together a referendum tool, where you answer 10 questions and rate their importance, and it assesses the five electoral systems against your responses.

It is a tool, not a bible. But well worth having a play with and seeing what systems it says you are most aligned with.

NewstalkZB reports:

Hone Harawira plans to appeal a decision that means he’s not eligible for any public funding for broadcasting during the election campaign.

The Electoral Commission released its funding allocations today but because the Mana Party didn’t exist when the deadline passed, it missed out any TV or radio time.

Mr Harawira says he’s disappointed because he got his party registration application in on time, but missed out on the funding allocation through no fault of his own.

“I don’t know that there are appeal options but just because we’re not sure doesn’t mean to say we won’t try. I’ll be advising our Party secretary this afternoon to lodge a formal appeal and to see how we get on. If we’re unsuccessful, we’ll move on,” he says.

The story is wrong and Hone is wrong. You can apply for an allocation, even if you are not registered, so long as you register before mid October.

And Graeme Edgeler wrote on the previous thread:

… however, the Mana Party wasn’t shut out. You don’t have to be registered to apply for an allocation, and I sent Hone a message before the applications closed to try to make sure he knew he could apply to get one.

So Hone was told before the deadline that he could apply. He missed out because he did nothing. And oh yeah there is no appeal.

Graeme Edgeler at Public Address has an excellent Q&A on STV. One or two blogs that purport to be specialist local body blogs have shown a dismal lack of knowledge on how STV works. They should also link to Graeme’s analysis. Some extracts:

But is it a good idea to rank everyone?

Yes.

But if I give someone I don’t like a rank, couldn’t this hurt the chances of candidates I like more?

No.

Your lower preferences cannot ever harm the election prospects of anyone you rank higher than them.

This is key. Don’t try and be strategic and working out who is most popular and hence I will rank them lower as they don’t need my vote etc. Just rank candidates in order of your true actual preference.

But what if I really don’t want to rank everyone?

You don’t have to. If there are a bunch of people whom you think are just as bad each other, or you know nothing about, your vote will still count. If the election comes down to race between people you haven’t ranked, you won’t help determine the result, but if you don’t mind which of them is elected, this shouldn’t bother you too much.

But if there’s someone I really really don’t want elected, I should rank everyone else above them

Yes.

This is again on the mark. If you have no opinions on a group of candidates you can leave them unranked. However if there is a candidate you definitely do not want to be elected, then you should rank all candidates and rank them bottom.

An informed vote is always a good idea.

Even for the District Health Board?

Okay, you got me. Health Board elections are stupid.

Yes they are. Please National get rid of them.

Labour have produced out of their Leader’s Office budget, a pamphlet promoting the 2008 budget. The NZ Herald reports that it is almost certainly an election expense and will come out of the $2.4 million spending cap:

Wellington electoral law specialist Graeme Edgeler said last night the leaflet met the definition of election advertisement under the Electoral Finance Act.

“It doesn’t say vote Labour, but that is the clear implication.”

It had party colours, the Labour logo, and the party’s tax-cut promises this year and in the future.

He did not believe it could be considered under the exception given to an MP producing material in their capacity as MP.

“This is a Labour Party promotional leaflet.”

It was “almost certainly” an election advertisement and as such should be declared in the party’s expenses.

Any postage costs in sending it out, should also be included!

It may also count as a donation:

Mr Edgeler also said that under the new law, the cost of the leaflet might have to be declared as an election donation by the Parliamentary Service to the Labour Party.

“If I gave the Labour Party $30,000 worth of leaflets it would be a donation – just as if they printed off $30,000 worth and sent me the bill and I paid it, that would be a donation.

“I really don’t see the difference between them sending a bill to me, or getting the leaflets from me, and them sending the bill to the Parliamentary Service or getting the leaflets from the Parliamentary Service.”

It will be very interesting to have revealed the total amount of taxpayer funding spent on election advertising.

UPDATE: It appears the Government was unable to find a happy New Zealand family for their publicity campaign, so they have used an American family!

Well done to Skinny for his detective work. Someone has found another photo of the family which more fairly reflects their situation:

This is very very funny.

Karl du Fresne calls the Media 7 show on the Pacific immigration debate a gang-up on Dom Post Editor Tim Pankhurst.

Steven Price points out to the Ministry of Justice that their site for court decisions of public interest, is missing all the interesting ones. To be fair I think it is up to the Judge to tick the box on whether it should go there, but regardless someone in the Ministry should use their common sense and make sure the EFA judgements and the abortion law one go up asap. The latest EFA is here for those who want it.

JafaPete asks whether people are just voting for change for change’s sake. He agrees with Chris Trotter that the anti-smacking bill may have been a turning point. He also says the EFA may have had an impact on the Government’s unpopularity.

No Right Turn covers the abortion debate and High Court decision. I am not surprised with the High Court ruling – it has been apparent for some decades that we have a de facto abortion on demand regime, despite a legislative framework that reserves it for serious danger to physical or mental health. Now I support abortion (up to a certain date) on demand and even though it would probably be a very heated debate, the proper way to change laws is through public vote or the legislature – not through the back door. The issues were covered on this blog back in March, and in a sign of hope it was a reasonably rational debate with analysis, not just name calling.

Graeme Edgeler covers issues in the Criminal Procedures Bill, and does a summary of each of the dozen or so changed. Excellent.

Colin James is not a blogger (in fact I would call him an anti-blogger!) but his op ed on inflation is worth reading.