The Appropriation (Parliamentary Expenditure Validation) Bill just passed its third reading 61 to 50, with 6 abstentions (and the Maori Party not voting). We won, you lost, suck it. Meanwhile, the Parliamentary Services Commission has already begun the process of formulating new rules, including the basic step of having Parliamentary Services actually check material before paying for it. Which means that we should not see this sort of retrospective reinterpretation happening again.
I/S, are you actually comfortable with the fact that the Government explicitly voted against the amendment that would have allowed the Darnton vs. Clark lawsuit to continue?
ReplyDeleteI mean, this is corruption above & beyond any wrongdoing committed during the election campaign. As DPF put it:
"This means Labour have explictly voted to kill off a lawsuit against themselves. This is even more repugnant that what Muldoon did as he did not stand to personally benefit from his actions in Fitzgerald v Muldoon."
[On a related note, I suggest that anyone opposed to the retroactive legislation should visit & 'sign' the No Royal Assent to Electoral Act Violations petition.]
> We won, you lost, suck it.
ReplyDeleteIm fairly neutral on the issue of validation (not sure if it is required but I'll take the money and be content with that)....
But that is not good form to say "we have the power so we can do anything and you have no power so you have to just take it".
Unless you really are an authoritarian.
"We won, you lost, suck it"
ReplyDeleteTo see how divise Labour's approach has become, see the online petition to withhold royal assent.
http://www.petitiononline.com/nzgg/petition.html
Of course there is no chance royal assent will be refused. But there is no way to 'spin' the over 3000 signatures gathered so far (in less than a day).
Like George Bush's America, Helen Clark's NZ seems to one where "you are for us or you are against us". Well, a lot of people are saying, then I'm against you.
There are probably important issues of principle here, and I suppose I should take them seriously. But when National MPs and their allies are brandishing "Clark = Mugabe" posters, I can't help feel they don't even take it seriously themselves. So they forfeit the right to my respect or attention.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things that offends me most in comfortable, liberal, couch potato democracies, is any absurd analogy with real, murderous repression. Usually it's a comparison with the Nazis. It's lazy, it's ignorant, it's self-absorbed, and above all, it betrays a stomach-churning lack of sympathy for the real victims of oppression, as though they are good for nothing but cheap political point-scoring. Mugabe? Get a grip. The man's got buckets of blood on his hands.
A week or two living under the dictator they invoke might restore some balance to their narrow little minds.
Simon
Irony I/S? Channelling Jordan Carter? Hey, I think storm/teacup etc on this issue to an extent but am nevertheless a little surprised by your comment.
ReplyDeleteUm, yes we lost. In a "you killed all the civillians to get to the terrorist" sort of way.
ReplyDeleteSucks to be you, winner.
Duncan: The A-G's ruling made the lawsuit pretty much a moot point - the spending was unlawful. And now (as I've pointed out elsewhere) the usual procedure has been followed, and the spending validated. That is how our constitutional system operates. And its difficult to see how this could have been done while preserving the lawsuit, or what the point of doing so would have been (yes, I know you wanted to grandstand, but the A-G beat you to it. Get over it already).
ReplyDeleteKiwi Donkey: While I think the underlying premise of the petition is nonsensical and reveals a fundamental constitutional ignorance, 3000 signatures in a day is indeed an achievement. Just remember to get them to a polling booth next election...
Backin15: Nope, no irony at all. After the viciousness, hypocrisy, hyperbole and misrepresentation there has been over this issue, and the way National has flung around allegations of "corruption" while pretending that the spending in question was not normal Parliamentary practice, that their hands were perfectly clean, or that retrospective validation of unappropriated expenditure is not normal Parliamentary procedure, I think they deserve to have their noses rubbed in it a bit. For all their moral hauteur, and with (if you believed them) the best case in the world, they were unable to build a coalition in Parliament to support their position (not that they had much of one beyond their soundbite "the government was wrong and they should pay the money back". Done and done - got anything else besides sloganeering and a pile of partisan outrage?) This wasn't because the parties in question were "corrupt" - it was because they thought National (and the A-G) were wrong. And they've now firmly established that position in law.
ReplyDeleteNot that its much of a victory. The status quo ante is restored while Parliament decides (in consultation with the A-G) what MPs can spend their money on (this may result in changes to the appropriation in the next budget. That's part of the process too) - but that was hardly worth the political shitfight that was had over it. Labour still has to repay the money (anyone who thinks they won't is a fool or a shill; the public simply won't stand for it, and Labour knows it. Winston, OTOH...), and more importantly it is still tarred by its illegal election expenditure, even if this can no longer be prosecuted. And I think the latter is really going to cost them.
"Just had a look at some of the names on the petition, reads awfully like a white boys club to me! Suprising that there are people with such contempt for democracy." says james cairney. Not that surprising really. Fascism/neo-fascism has always been the middle class ideology of choice, and you only have to visit sir humphreys or see David Farrar, the Josef Goebbels of the National party, posting up the Mugabe image to whip his bownshirts into another round of hate filled frenzy to realise that neo-fascism is just where these people are going to eventually end up as their illogical hatred of Labour paints them into an ever more extreme political corner.
ReplyDeleteBy making this a C&S issue Labour have also headed off National's claims about it lacking in legitamacy. If National had mustered enough votes in parliament it could have unseated this government.
ReplyDeleteIt failed, just as it failed to win an election. Someone needs to educate them about the democratic convention in this country.
Where National has succeeded is in polarising the debate. No longer do we discuss which policies are best for our country, we are now all relegated to side line cheerleaders. This is what National want because it seems they lack the confidence after 7 years to win votes on a policy debate.
Hence the Mugabe comparisons. When I saw that I nearly vomitted. Simple point, if Farrar or I/S tried running similar sites in Zimbabwe they would soon be applying for refuge status in NZ. Ironic, eh.
I also note that for all their shrillness National still has not paid the broadcasters their GST. They need retrospective legislation to make this payment legal.
ReplyDeleteAnd guess which National MP didn't understand the AG's rules? Mark Blumskey, whose agent was non-other than David Farrar. More irony.
Noddy - National do not need retrospective legislation to make payment of the GST legal.
ReplyDeletegraeme - what did they need it for then? My understanding was that if they pay the $100k they breach the law on TV spending limits and possibly incur a fine of $110k.
ReplyDeleteCan you clarify your point or is simply a question of timing? (not yet paid so no breach of a law yet but there will be as soon as they do pay. Seems like a nicety to me and surely they are only not in breqach of contract law because the broadcasters are being nice to them) Thanks.
It is hilarious to see people criticising the "white boys club" on the petition. Not only is this factually wrong, it astonishingly racist.
ReplyDeleteWAKE UP. Smell the divisiveness.
As for retrospectivity it is a question of timing.
ReplyDeleteThey haven't paid the $112,500 they owe so they haven't committed an offence they they need to be retrospectively cleared of.
However, despite the advice of their lawyers, the Chief Electoral Officer and others, I'm not convinced paying the money now would be a breach of the Broadcasting Act:
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/lbj/2006/oct/14/pay_up_and_face_the_consequences
Graeme Edgeler: Actually, being fined or having other consequences on the GST would be *brilliant* for National politically. "Legislation clears Labour but not National". Imagine how that would play.
ReplyDelete"Legislation clears Labour but not National". Imagine how that would play.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it would play very well indeed on kiwiblog and sir-h, but would be roundly ignored by the other 99.93% of the population, who are roundly sick of the whole business and want to get on with life.
Graeme - I would argue that National incurred the cost in 2005 and that is when the technically breached the law. So, whilst there may be some cute semantics, they are effectively asking for legislation to right a wrong that has already taken place.
ReplyDelete"being fined or having other consequences on the GST would be *brilliant* for National politically..."
ReplyDeleteWhich goes to show what a lousy opposition National are under Brash. I can only imagine how shit a government they would make with him as PM.
"Helen Clark isn't as bad as Mugabe".
ReplyDeleteThat has to be the lamest defense I've heard of a politician in a very long time.
James,
ReplyDelete"Pay it back" may have been the Tory line - but that's because they had their noses in the trough themselves, just see the figures DPF published on his blog.
However, as Darnton put it in Paying It Back Isn’t Enough:
They need to admit their wrongdoing and assure us that they will not steal public funds again. Right at the very start of this case I pointed out that Crown spending of public money not appropriated by Parliament is a violation of one of the laws that separates a liberal democracy from a dictatorship. Labour needs to decide which side of that fence they’re on.
Anon: "but would be roundly ignored by the other 99.93% of the population"
ReplyDeleteAlready out of date. So far 0.3% of the 2.3m voters have signed the petition. And almost 2% of voters have viewed Darnton's pledge card auction.
And I see that in Labour's world, anybody who doesn't shout "No!" is deemed to agree with you.
"Graeme - I would argue that National incurred the cost in 2005 and that is when the technically breached the law. So, whilst there may be some cute semantics, they are effectively asking for legislation to right a wrong that has already taken place."
ReplyDeleteNational definitely breached the law in 2005. It wasn't a technical breach, it was an actual big important breach. Because the police were incompetent, they got off scot-free. They could have been fined $100,000 then, but can't now because the six-month time-limit for Broadcasting Act charges has passed.
The law change they seek will not make what they did then legal. In much the same way that yesterday's government-passed law did not make Labour's deliberate breaches of the Electoral Act spending cap legal.
Labour does not need (nor want) retrospective legislation to escape prosecution for their actions in breach of the Electoral Act last year, and National does not need (nor want) retrospective legislation to escape prosecution for their breaches of the Broadcasting Act last year.
They want to pay their bills now, they assert this would be a new breach of the Broadcasting Act, and don't want to compound their breach of the Broadcasting Act committed last year with another one committed this year. They should have been punished last year for what they did, not this year for trying to make it better.
In response to an earlier point you made, the Broadcasters have no legal basis on which to sue National for the unpaid monies, if they could have they would have.
"Helen Clark isn't as bad as Mugabe".
ReplyDeleteThat has to be the lamest defense I've heard of a politician in a very long time.
It would be, if anybody was saying it. They aren't. Try reading the thread again.
Or, let me help you out:
I'm charged with breaching a liquor ban. Somebody says that makes me a drunk driver, who kills. I say that is false, and absurd. How does that constitute a defence against the original charge? It doesn't. Separate issue.
The Mugabe comparison was introduced by Clark's opponents, not her defenders. If you think it's lame, address your concerns to them.
Simon
I give up.
ReplyDeleteI/S, fair enought then - well made points (you've given better voice to them than I might have).
ReplyDeleteFrom what I can see both sides have played dirty self-interested politics over the election spend issue, and although on the face of it, this legislation is detestable, the whole area of election spending appears to need cleaning up. Public opinion has already swayed parties to pay back what the AG calculated and the PM and the Labour party have taken a beating because of the way they have handled it. Damage done, time to move on to getting some decent tax cuts and other important stuff.
ReplyDeleteFlogging the 2005 election over the next 12 months in the courts is not going to do parliament or the morale of the country any good. It may give some Libertarian a fix and sell lots of newspapers, but in the long run it will only prove damaging to more people than it benefits, and the only benefit will be to National Party supporters who want to see a premature election.
Kent, you only have to read the comments section on DPF to see premature election is something most right wing bloggers live with every day.
ReplyDelete