Public Address | Cafe | Legal Beagle: I have this theory

Steve Barnes

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 18:01:33 +1200

Surely the whole point of the EFA was to reduce, if not eliminate, undue influence arising from an imbalance of financial resources?

Graeme Edgeler

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:51:56 +1200

Steve – we get to vote.

Steve Barnes

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 17:39:35 +1200

So what defence do we have against publications like the Herald running a campaign?
It seems to me that it would be far too easy for National to win the election on the backing of the Herald alone on a nod and a wink through the "Old Boy's" Network.

Graeme Edgeler

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 10:07:08 +1200

National deliberately breaks the law by overspending at an election, but no one investigates, time runs out, so never mind.

They did? How?

In addition, National spends the same money everyone else does on the same stuff, but does it a couple weeks earlier, and the law gets retrospectively reinterpreted…

tussock

Sat, 21 Jun 2008 01:54:46 +1200

Most hilarious thing ever.

National deliberately breaks the law by overspending at an election, but no one investigates, time runs out, so never mind.

In addition, National spends the same money everyone else does on the same stuff, but does it a couple weeks earlier, and the law gets retrospectively…

Lyndon Hood

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:15:14 +1200

... should have to give the damn money back, like Labour did?

While I'm throwing in random historical facts, that would be (offhand) "like Labour, National*, United Future, The Greens and the Maori Party did". The Progressives didn't have any to pay and NZ First just didn't. Not, as above, that…

FletcherB

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:51:16 +1200

And would be cynical to suggest that all this complexity was no accident.

I'm sure it was designed to have grey areas.... But I doubt the designers expected to get bitten on the bum by their own attack dog.

I'm certainly enjoying a bit of schadenfreude seeing the politicians hoist…

George Darroch

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 13:21:51 +1200

National if caught out can claim that the law is unclear and badly written. In this case they can point to it infringing upon previously accepted electoral advertising practice – making the law seem unfair.

Its a brilliant tactic, and they've played it well. It allows them to put Labour…

Craig Ranapia

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:46:05 +1200

Winston defends himself by saying Parliamentary Services signed off on the spending in the first place so NZ First did nothing wrong. That's an issue that needs following up.

Nick: ITA with you, because there's also been some very strong allegations made against the Auditor General. I know Winston has…

Angus Robertson

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:44:55 +1200

And I'm just trying to work out whether they've thought this through. Using the Electoral Finance Act to stop Parliamentary spending makes sense from National's perspective, but the implicit allegation of offending that this attack necessarily entails could backfire. Any complaint about Labour's Mike Smith-approved, but potentially not Mike Smith-initiated,…

Craig Ranapia

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:37:18 +1200

Yes, It's amazing how Winston has pulled this off. The media have seemed to have written it off as "Canny Winston pulls another savvy political trick" complete with video of person-on-street saying "I think it's wrong, but that Winston, eh? He knows how to play the game". So its a…

Kyle Matthews

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:31:00 +1200

I was actually in a bit of a hurry today.

Yeah I'm definitely not shooting the messenger. You can only work with what you've been given.

Yes, It's amazing how Winston has pulled this off.

I don't get how there's no legal redress. He's just making up stupid shit and…

Lyndon Hood

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:23:04 +1200

Discussing Winston, bear in mind that all the spending was retrospectively legalised by parliament. There was an 'expectation' that everyone would pay it back but I don't think Winston every accepted it.

So we're talking about a moral and political issue.

OTOH seems most people don't seem to follow that.

Nick D'Angelo

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:14:00 +1200

I have another theory on NZ first...
If you owe me $20, and then tell me you gave the $20 to charity.... You still owe me the $20.

Yes, It's amazing how Winston has pulled this off. The media have seemed to have written it off as "Canny Winston pulls another…

Mike Graham

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:13:16 +1200

Graeme – sorry, I'm just highlighting my ignorance. When I hear 'Mike Smith' I think of a chain-saw and a hill in Auckland.

Craig Ranapia

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:00:35 +1200

If National is serious, they're not just trying to embarrass Labour, they're trying to break the system.

And I don't actually think that's a bad thing if a Key-lead government finds itself (intentionally or not) in a position where it has to do what the EFA should have done --…

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 12:00:21 +1200

I know you're trying hard to make it understandable for humans Graeme, but my eyes started to glaze over there.

I was actually in a bit of a hurry today.

Kyle Matthews

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:53:56 +1200

I'm done with the EFA for this election cycle, and it hasn't even started yet. I know you're trying hard to make it understandable for humans Graeme, but my eyes started to glaze over there.

Previously I've somewhat argued for it. Now I think I need do get a couple…

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:35:57 +1200

Steve – that is the only way the law will work (so I think it will fly) but there is an argument there – but like I say, a dangerous one.

I can make a "Vote Labour" sign (I won't be spending $12,000+ so I'm entitled without registering). I will…

George Darroch

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:28:02 +1200

I suspect that if National do know what they're doing, they've decided it's worth it. And I suspect they're right; given how the major newsmedia have played electoral finance issues so far, the damage to Labour would invariably be greater, and in this equation that's all that matters.

And then…

Mike Graham

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 11:03:02 +1200

Mike Smith? I presume you mean Mike Williams!

Steve Withers

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:49:47 +1200

The initiator can only be the authorisor. It cannot be said to have been done if it was not authorised. Once authorised, the impetus for it being done rests with the authorisor who allowed it to happen legally.

The point being contested is a confusion f the practical with the…

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:41:24 +1200

Quite right Fletcher, but I don't owe you $20.

:-)

FletcherB

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:38:31 +1200

I have another theory on NZ first...

If you owe me $20, and then tell me you gave the $20 to charity.... You still owe me the $20.

If you beg/borrow/cajole $158k from your supporters to pay a debt, and then spend it elsewhere, you're going to have to beg/borrow/cajole…

Graeme Edgeler

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:36:24 +1200

Rich – it's not.

Election spending is the cost of advertising. This doesn't count.

Rich of Observationz

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:30:30 +1200

On a related topic, is the $158k that NZ First are trying to dump on any charity that will take it "election spending"?

I'd reckon it is – as it's an attempt to curry favour with the electorate.

Public Address

Wed, 18 Jun 2008 10:30:30 +1200

Discussion from blog post.