One almost has to admire the spin. Dr Cullen says that he will not be introducing “retrospective” legislation to let his party off paying for the cost of their election plegde cards but instead “validating” legislation.
There is of course no difference, but the hope the media and public are stupid enough to be fooled.
The Greens look to be throwing out what remains of their principles and seem poised to back the retrospective legislation.
Winston Peters actually is talking about doing the correct thing. If you don’t like the ruling, then challenge it in court.
And big kudos to the Herald, for mentioning the Darnton v Clark lawsuit, because this is going to become more pivotal.
This lawsuit was filed some months ago, and any retrospective legislation would cut across that lawsuit which would be constutionally even more horrific. It would also raise issues of compensation for the plaintiffs.
John Armstrong’s column is spot on:
The Prime Minister is instead arguing that it is the Auditor-General who has changed the rules of the game after the referee had blown the final whistle.
This is bunkum. While the rules confusingly allow parties to inform the public of its views, the definition rules out anything that promotes the election of a person or party.
Moreover, Brady warned three months before the 2005 election about not using parliamentary advertising for electioneering or related purposes.