According to the Herald, Labour will reconsider repaying the $800,000 for its election pledge cards if New Zealand First succeeds in a legal challenge. This has drawn the expected outrage on the right, with DPF claiming that Labour plans to "renege" on its debt. But think about that for a moment: if a challenge is successful, Labour will presumably owe less than they do at present. How then can the repayment of that lesser amount be said to be "reneging"? Labour will still be paying exactly what it owes, no more, no less.
DPF (and the National Party's) position boils down to the absurd demand that in the event of a successful challenge, other parties "repay" money that they do not owe. Which simply reinforces my assessment that this spat was all about the money. National can't win at the ballot box, so they're trying to win at the bank instead.
(As for DPF's comments about how the government should have waited for the result of the Darnton v Clark lawsuit, I don't think there's an exception in the Public Finance Act for that. Once the Auditor-General had found the spending to be unlawful, the government had to validate it. This is standard procedure, and done every year for something. More importantly, they also had to restore certainty so that Parliamentary Services - and hence Parliament itself - could continue to function. Unlike the Libertarians and DPF, I do not think that effectively shutting down Parliament would have been worth it simply to allow them to continue to grandstand on what was by then an entirely moot point).
4 comments:
Flip flop twist and turn.. The PM was not amused
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10422508
Posted by Anonymous : 2/05/2007 12:13:00 PM
There is no debt.
There has never been a debt.
The promise was not to repay the debt, but to pay the monies found by the Auditor-General to be unlawful.
DPF's comment about Darnton v Clark is to the effect that they should have supported the amendment proposed in the Committee of the WHole that would have meant that that case was unaffected by the legilsation.
However, the Government cannot validate spending. Only Parliament can. Are you suggesting that the Public Finance Act *requires* Parliament to do anything, over-ruling the supremacy of Parliament?
As for certainty for the future, a new directive from the Speaker was all that was required.
Posted by Graeme Edgeler : 2/05/2007 12:24:00 PM
Wrong on almost every front. A NZ First challenge will only affect NZ First. What Labour were saying was if Winston suceeds in getting even one pamphlet recategorised we'll use that as grounds to claim the AG was wrong on everything.
I have no problems with parties challenging the AG in court. But Labour is not doing this.
And claiming National could not beat Labour with votes so is trying to win at the bank is ironic when Labour exceeded its spending cap by aroudn 33%.
Finally you miss the point with darnton v Clark. The Govt could have validated the spending yet left the lawsuit untouched. That would have been the constitutionally proper way to go. I am amazed for all your principles you don't complain about MPs voting to wipe out a lawsuit which they personally were respondents for.
National put up a spcecific amendment to allow this - validate the spending but allow teh lawsuit to proceed.
And its nonsense about shutting down Parliament. Godo God you know enough abotu amendmnts to bills to know one can amend a bill and still keep the otehr provisions intact such as teh temporary definition. I know you know this, so can only conclude you are deliberately obfuscating the issue.
Posted by David Farrar : 2/05/2007 01:08:00 PM
IS: Whatever you have posted here about the legality of all this, it seems the PM disagrees with you and has done a u-turn (again) over the matter.
Posted by Anonymous : 2/05/2007 01:29:00 PM
Post a Comment
(Anonymous comments are enabled).