Legal Beagle by Graeme Edgeler

P.S. I promise that not all future posts will be on the Electoral Finance Act.

I have no legal training, but I can read and have a brain...

I'd be interested to see the logic of anyone who think's you're wrong....

I promise that not all future posts will be on the Electoral Finance Act.

Yes, because it's starting to look like PA has been bought by the NZ Herald :-)

Anyways, I'm not a lawyer, but when a term isn't defined in a statute, doesn't the dictionary definition cut in.

Also, I'm thinking that if Parliament was making the "donation" (by passing a law requiring the Parliamentary Service to do so) then it's not something thats legally reviewable.

And why wasn't this flagged up at the time by all those lawyer/MPs in Parliament, not to mention the lawyers paid to draft and review legislation?

Also, I'm thinking that if Parliament was making the "donation" (by passing a law requiring the Parliamentary Service to do so) then it's not something thats legally reviewable.

I wouldn't be seeking to review what Parliament has done, but rather how the recipient party has treated it. The disclosure obligations in the EFA are placed on the parties (or their financial agents). When the party receives the money, or value, they should declare it within 10 working days if it's over $20,000. I'm not saying Parliament has done wrong, more that a party that failed to tell us where it got its money from might have if they fail to mention it publicly.

why wasn't this flagged up at the time by all those lawyer/MPs in Parliament...

I can't blame them for this one - if this was all there was I'd be lauding them for doing a bang-up job - you can't expect perfection in this business. It took me months to twig, and I've been following pretty closely.

The Parliamentary Service is most directly responsible for the benefit the party has received – they're the ones actually making the payment – signing and sending the cheque to the supplier, but – under a legal obligation to do it – they've at least an argument they're not really donating anything.

If the Parliamentary Service are found not to be "donating" anything then could it be possible to set terms for a private trust to mimic the Parliamentary Service? A trust under obligation to finance electoral advertising attacking party X could free its sponsors from the $120,000 restriction of a 3rd party.

could it be possible to set terms for a private trust to mimic the Parliamentary Service? A trust under obligation to finance electoral advertising attacking party X could free its sponsors from the $120,000 restriction of a 3rd party.

Not really needed. There's nothing to stop any person with enough money giving $120,000 donations to as many third parties as they like - each of which will be able to register and spend to the limit.

Not worried about the rich, more people possessing much less than $120,000. An "anti-party X" trust fund could solicit individual contributions of much less money from a larger number of people and effectively control a campaign against party X without violating the EFA?

Angus - if I understand what you're getting at, then yes, it would be legal. Those might still have to be declared as donations by the recipients, depending on my analysis above, and if the trust was being used to funnel donations, then it might have to reveal the ultimate donors (it might be acting as a transmitter of the donations, rather than as the donor). If you want to get a little more specific in your scenario, I'm happy to analyse it.