Darnton vs Clark

Dated 27th June 2006

The Applicant, by his solicitor, says:

A. The Parties

1. The Applicant is an elector, a tax payer and the leader of the Libertarianz Party, one of the political parties which contested the 2005 general election.

2. The First Respondents were the members of the Labour parliamentary party during the 2005 election campaign.

3. Proceedings are issued against the Attorney-General in respect of the Parliamentary Service, (“the Service”), a statutory body established pursuant to the Parliamentary Service Act 2000.

B. Scope of the Relevant Appropriation

4. The Estimates presented by the Government for its expenditure in the financial year 2005-06 allocated $116,798,000.00 to “Vote Parliamentary Service”.

5. That sum was to be applied:

(i) $46,363,000.00 “on purchasing support and administrative services from the Parliamentary Service.”

(ii) $38,746,000.00 “on covering other expenditure incurred on the direct authority of members themselves.”

(iii) $14,675,000.00 “on payment of members’ salaries and allowances.”

(iv) $17,014,000.00 “on capital investment in the parliamentary complex.”

6. Of the expenditure referred to in paragraph 5(ii) as being to be “incurred on the direct authority of members themselves”, $5,326,000.00 was specifically appropriated for “Party and Member Support – Labour”.

7. The Estimates described the “scope” of the appropriation referred to in paragraph 6 was described in the Estimates as “Funding for the Labour parliamentary party to support its Leader’s office, research operations, Whips’ office and members’ parliamentary operations.”

8. In due course the Appropriation (2005/06 Estimates) Act was passed on the 9th August 2005 and came into force on the following day.

9. Amongst the sums appropriated by that Act, and set out in the First Schedule thereto, was the sum referred to in paragraph 6, namely $5,326,000.00 “Party and Member Support – Labour”.

10. This sum was subsequently proposed to be reduced by $219,000.00 in the Appropriation (2005/2006 Supplementary Estimates) Bill.

C. Events Leading to Reviewable Decisions

11. During the 2005 general election campaign a “Pledge Card” and related brochure were widely distributed. The card was in the name of the first named First Respondent. It set out a number of election promises to which she committed herself. The promises were described in Labour Party publicity as “Labour’s key election pledges”.

12. The card and brochure invited responses to, inter alia, “freepost Helen Clark, Parliament Buildings, Wellington”.

13. The card and brochure bore the photograph and signature of the first named First Respondent.

14. The cost of producing the Pledge Card and brochure was $376,521.00.

15. The Pledge Card and related brochure were distributed by mail.

16. The Parliamentary postage system is subject to supervision by the Speaker of the House of Representatives.

17. The First Respondents did not use that service. Postage was effected by Maxi Services Limited at a cost of $70,294.00.

18. The production costs of $376,521.00 and the postage costs of $70,294.00 were paid by the Service from money allocated by Parliament in terms of the appropriation referred to in paragraphs 5(ii), 6 and 7.

19. That payment was authorised by the First Respondents by their agent Heather Simpson.

D. Grounds of Review

20. The First Respondents’ exercise of their “direct authority” to authorise the payments referred to in paragraph 18, and the Service’s payments were decisions or actions made in the purported exercise of statutory powers.

21. Those decisions and actions are reviewable.

22. The expenditure referred to in paragraph 18 was not made for the purpose of “Funding for the Labour parliamentary party to support its Leader’s office, research operations, Whips’ office and members’ parliamentary operations.”

23. That expenditure was:

(i) Of public money otherwise than “by or under an Act of Parliament” contrary to the Constitution Act 1986 s.22(c).

(ii) Not “expressly authorised by an appropriation, or other authority, by or under an Act” contrary to the Public Finance Act 1989 s.4.

(iii) The spending of “public money, except as expressly authorised by or under an Act”, contrary to the Public Finance Act 1989 s.5.

(iv) Beyond the scope of the relevant appropriation, contrary to the Public Finance Act 1989 s.9(i)(a).

(v) Used for a purpose other than that described in “the scope of the appropriation”, contrary to the Public Finance Act 1989 s.9(1)(b); and

(vi)Contrary to the spirit and intent of article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688.

RELIEF CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS

(a) A declaration that the expenditure on the production and distribution of the “Pledge Card” and related brochure from money allocated by Parliament as funding for the Labour parliamentary party was in breach of the Constitution Act 1986 s.22(c), the Public Finance Act 1989 sections 4, 5 and 9, and Article 4 of the Bill of Rights 1688.

(b) Costs.

(c) Such further relief or other relief as may be appropriate.

This entry was posted on Thursday, June 29th, 2006 at 5:14 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.