Darnton vs Clark

A story in this morning’s Herald (Labour gives opponents more ammo with pledge card explanation) reveals that election campaign volunteers assembled the pledge card packs.

Labour Party president Mike Williams says that volunteers assembled the card packs, that the cards were an integrated part of the election campaign, and that at no time was there any request for the party to pay for the card.

My case is very simple: When spending public money, “Parliamentary business” = legal, “electioneering” = illegal. Now remind me again how the card wasn’t electioneering…

One for the “unlikely” file. David Farrar at Kiwiblog has set up a betting pool on this court case. So far, no one has placed any money at all on a Clark victory despite the ever-extending odds.

The letter from the Acting Solicitor-General that caused last Friday’s Herald headline has been removed from this site.

A story in today’s NZ Herald (MPs Knew Rules on Spending Says Watchdog) has Auditor-General Kevin Brady calling Clark’s bluff.

He says the rules were explained last year, well prior to the election, contra to Labour’s claim that the rules are being changed after the event.

He says that his report only covers expenditure in the three months prior to the last election, contra to Labour’s claim that it covers $350 million in spending back into prehistoric times and Ending The World As We Know It.

So, Labour, you are guilty as sin, you knew about it before the fact, your excuse for retrospective legislation has disappeared so lets just get on with the confession and the apology shall we?

That’s former Labour PM, Mike Moore in today’s Herald - MPs Forgiven Too Readily.

Highlights:

• New Zealand is “beginning to adopt third world standards in some areas.”
• “MPs and ministers in many countries have resigned through pure shame for less.”
• “Proportional representation has acted as a muzzle on free speech and the logic of serious debate.”
• “Sleaze seems too easily forgiven.”

Moore concludes that politicians, like babies’ nappies, need changing often, and for the same reasons.

If I think it’s time for regime change, that’s one thing. When a former Labour Prime Minister is saying, “you’re sleazy and corrupt - it’s time to go,” they have a far more serious problem.

Thanks to everyone who’s been donating to the legal fund. Your help is much appreciated.

The best letter I’ve had from a donor to date contained this gem:

I just wanted you to know that the donation money is from the interest I’ve earned off having Labour’s interest-free student loan money in my bank account this month. Thought it may as well go to a good cause.

Gosh, the ingratitude of young people these days. That election bribe was to buy your deference to The Party. How dare you?

Front page on the NZ Herald this morning is the story Official Contradicts MPs on Election Costs.

A legal letter from the Acting Solicitor-General contradicts political parties’ claims that they had approval for taxpayer-funded election spending.

…Labour leader and Prime Minister Helen Clark says the issue is essentially a dispute between the Parliamentary Service and the Auditor General.

The letter basically says two things. Firstly, that the Attorney-General should not be being sued in respect of the Parliamentary Service. This is immaterial - it all comes back to Crown Law anyway. Secondly, that the Parliamentary Service simply adminsiters payments and has no power to vet what it’s paying for.

Great to see the defendants squabbling amongst themselves.

[UPDATE 22/08: Link to the letter removed.]

Presumably, if the Parliamentary Service just rubber stamps any cheques they get, you could bill them for anything at all - like tiling your house, thus avoiding the temptation to do it under the table.

Labour has filed its Statement of Defence and it’s here for everyone to see.

My Statement of Claim (earlier post)
Labour’s Statement of Defence (pdf, 375 kB)

The main defence is, as you’d expect, that the spending was on the conduct of parliamentary business (and by implication not electioneering). This is, of course, bollocks. I’ll trust the professionals to come up with a different word. “Baloney” if you’re in the National Party.

There’s a lot of technical mumbo-jumbo throughout, which will no doubt keep a few lawyers off the streets for a while, along with a few interesting bits.

One of the highlights has to be paragraph 25a. To paraphrase “Even if we did do it (which we didn’t) everyone else was doing it too.” Last time I heard that used as a defence for anything was in fourth form.

A special comic moment comes in paragraph 28, where they claim that they were just exercising their right of free speech under the NZ Bill of Rights Act. A hint, folks: “free” speech doesn’t mean speech that someone else pays for.

You can always tell when you’re getting to Michael Cullen. He switches from being a smart-arse to making threats.

Last week we saw Cullen the genius unveil the final part of his power-buying trick. It goes like this: You steal public money to buy the election, assuming that you won’t get caught and nobody will have the nerve to say anything. When you do get pulled up for it, you use the position you bought with your stolen money to retrospectively legalise everything you did wrong. Neat.

Not everyone is so impressed though. Yesterday, the NZ Herald published a story comparing “The Spin” with “What Actually Happened”. Cullen has suggested that the paper “consider the consistency of its position” (ie start to toe the party line) and implies that if they don’t they might find themselves “liable to a very large tax bill”.

Read the full story.

That which we call a steaming pile of horseshit
By any other word would smell as foul.

Cullen is preparing “validating” legislation to legalise his party’s theft of public money. Note that this is not “retrospective” legislation because retrospective legislation is bad and therefore it must be called something else.

“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” - George Orwell, Politics and the English Language, 1946.

A couple of other things to note from the NZ Herald story: All of the commentary is being done by Michael Cullen. This is a sure sign of guilt. When Helen Clark does something good, she takes the glory. When she does something indefensible Cullen gets to play clean up. Remember in 2001 when the Prime Minister issued a “don’t sell” notice for Air New Zealand (out of cluelessness rather than malice this time)? She disppeared and Cullen got to play sweeper because the Prime Minister can do no wrong.

A few days ago, Clark was whining that the Auditor-General was “changing the rules after the event”. (See my original post.) I pointed out at the time that he was doing no such thing. “Changing the rules after the event” is, however, something Labour is quite adept at when it benefits their own. When Harry Duynhoven broke the electoral rules in 2003 his seat should have been declared vacant. Since Labour ministers can do no wrong, retrospective legislation was passed and the constitutional niceties such as a by-election were brushed aside.

There is also mention in the story that the new “it’s not retrospective, it’s just backwards-looking*” legislation will be worded so as to derail my High Court case. Separation of powers is another constitutional nicety that Labour can do without. Don’t like a Court decision? A swift bit of legislation and it never happened. Can anyone say “Foreshore and Seabed”? Of course, separation of powers is designed to prevent corruption. Since Labour ministers can do no wrong it is clearly unnecessary.

*In more ways than one.

Links: 1) NZ Herald story (Labour Shifts the Goalposts).

2) Politics and the English Language, essay by George Orwell.

Having been caught up to their elbows in the till by the draft Auditor-General’s report, what is Labour’s predictable response?

Caught illegally taking public money to pay for their electioneering, is their response to admit fault, pay back the stolen money and promise not to do it again? No; it’s to change the law to make their pilfering legal.

Links: 1) Story on Stuff (Labour push for public party funding). Labour push their hands further into your pocket, more like it.

2) Commentary on Kiwiblog (Legalised theft).

Helen Clark was on Paul Holmes’ programme this morning on Newstalk ZB, and there a couple of things that need to be corrected.

(more…)

“Election payback stoush on cards,” says the Dom Post this morning (page A2, online here), obviously eager for a fight. Labour are keeping their mouths shut, their standard tactic whenever they’re caught doing something outrageous and Act, NZ First and the Greens are all crying foul. Some key points the newspaper has pulled from the report:

“Electioneering can be any advertisement intended to persuade any voter to vote - it does not have to be an explicit solicitation.”

“Advertising in the final weeks before an election must be considered to be electioneering unless it is of the most mundane type.”

The Sunday Star Times has a report this morning on the Auditor-General’s report into election spending. “Election ad spending was illegal, report finds.” Read the full story on Stuff.

It looks as if Gerry Brownlee is getting in on the act. A story in yesterday’s Dom Post (page A2, online here) has him attacking Jim Anderton for producing an anti-drug pamphlet that looks just like his Progressive Party’s election advertising.

‘Mr Brownlee called on Mr Anderton to “do the right thing” and have his party pay for the cost of the pamphlets. If not he would complain to the auditor-general.’