Labour’s Defence
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.
August 17th, 2006 at 7:32 pm
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.”
Dude if you paraphrase you cant then put it in quatation marks
August 17th, 2006 at 8:20 pm
Yes well while we’re right with you on this I’m not sure “thats bollocks” is going to be a suficient argument on the day.
you may have to elaberate in some way. “That’s total and utter bollocks” would sway me if I was in the seat.
August 17th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
What is revealing is that there is nothing in the statement of defense that rebuts the charges. It simply says the law is the law, your opinion is we did not comply, our opinion is we did comply. They will try to finesse you out of a courtroom by arguing it is a question of privilege. That is why they are trying to exclude Speaker Wilson.
Effectively they are relying on their being able to influence a judge to find they are within the law. Given the number of authorities (everyone bar the police) that have found the expenditure was illegal it would seem you now have a very high chance of technical success.
What is the implication of the defendants being forced to issue the declaration that the spending breached the various acts you name in the statement of claim. Aside from looking politically ridiculous and forcing them to pay it back are there further constitutional implications?
August 17th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
I forgot to say - Good luck against the borg