Darnton vs Clark

Found on the corner of Taranaki and Arthur Streets in Wellington. (Hat tip: a comment by Seamonkey Madness on Kiwiblog.)

No doubt this falls foul of the Sale of Liquor (Not Making Fun of the Dear Leader) Amendment Act, which will come into effect on 18th September 2005.

Potential Labour star Andrew Little wants Labour to show contrition over the pledge card scandal at this weekend’s conference. Quoted in today’s NZ Herald, he says, “There has to be an acknowledgement that a mistake was made, that a wrong judgment call was made.”

Little is currently the secretary of the Engineering, Printing, and Manufacturing Union, has become the face of unionism in New Zealand, and is likely to become a Labour MP in 2008. Understandably, he’d like the stench of corruption cleared before he takes up his seat.

With this court case abruptly terminated, I have begun work on a new project - freespeech.org.nz.

The site will become a central resource for information on the freedom of expression in New Zealand. The site has been kicked off with a blog called Section 14.

Later will come background information on freedom of speech and it’s necessity, longer magazine-style articles on various topics relevant to free speech in New Zealand, information on how and when to annoy your Parliamentarians, and a range of other useful tools.

The pledge card auction has closed. The winner was ‘rumpol1386′ (aka Graham from Upper Hutt) with a winning bid of $700.

Many thanks to all bidders and questioners. You’ve all helped make this auction into a phenomenon which has entertained thousands, generated publicity for the case in a number of newspapers, and spectacularly shown up Labour’s sour-faced, tight-lipped $30 attempt to copy this success.

On Wednesday afternoon (17th Oct) Blair Mulholland expressed his frustration with Labour’s disrespect for the law by creating an online petition to the Governor-General and announced it in Kiwiblog comments. From there it has grown like crazy. Yesterday afternoon it was growing at 1,000 signatures an hour. As of this morning the petition has gathered 17,000 signatures.

It was created in a hurry, out of anger at Labour’s behaviour, and Blair has said that in hindsight there are things about it that he would change. He has followed it up with a formal letter to the Governor-General explaining his position. (An interview with Blair Mulholland is available from Newstalk ZB.) It also carries no legal force, but it has proved to be an effective way for people to express their anger towards Labour’s twisting of the rules to get itself out of trouble.

I spent some of this afternoon in the public gallery. Edifying it wasn’t. It’s very difficult to follow what’s going on when some awful screeching retard on the Labour back benches keeps yelling, “How many Maori in the Brethren?” As I’ve said elsewhere, Labour’s recent selection policy seems to be based on obedience rather than talent.

Just to get to the core of why the Appropriation Bill was rushed through under urgency, the following amendment was moved:

Clause 6A(1) Nothing in this Act shall affect the High Court proceedings of Darnton v Clark dated 29 June 2006 (Civ No. 2006-485-1398) in which the plaintiff seeks a declaration that the expenditure on the “pledge card” and related brochures by the Labour Parliamentary Party is a breach of the Constitution Act 1986, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the Bill of Rights 1688.

The noes had it.

This afternoon Labour explicitly used Parliament to kill a lawsuit that they knew they couldn’t win in the High Court. In the High Court you can’t lie, you can’t sling mud, and you can’t change the subject and Labour simply isn’t capable of operating in such a clean environment.

Libertarianz will be marking New Zealand’s transition from a land of constitutionally limited government to banana republic by declaring October 18th to be Banana Republic Day. Libertarianz members and supporters will be outside Parliament from 11:30 this morning handing out bananas to mark this inauspicious occasion.

It looks as if retrospective legislation introduced into Parliament today (bill online, PDF) will spell the end of this lawsuit but it remains a moral victory.

If Labour had thought they were in the right they would have seen us in Court. In reality, they knew they were going to get a hiding and so they’re changing the law before the case can be tried.

This government has proven that they have no respect for the law. They’ve said they have legal opinions that differ to mine but they aren’t prepared to see them fail in court. Right at the start of this case I said that this government thought they were above the law. They’ve proved me right in a very disturbing fashion.

Changing the law to escape charges against them is something I’d expect from a third-world dictatorship. Sadly, New Zealand has no constitutional protections to prevent this type of abuse by a government that is, quite literally, out of control.

Obviously, we’re still looking at any further legal options.

Hat Tip: DPF.

Parliament will move into urgency tomorrow to pass retrospective legislation to legalise Labour’s raid on the public purse. National says they haven’t seen the proposed legislation yet and so are reserving judgement on it.

Some of the details and the law’s potential effect on this court case was discussed on Newstalk ZB this afternoon by Barry Soper (audio, 7 min, Darnton v Clark discussion starts around 3:00). Until I actually see the proposed law I won’t know exactly what effect it will have on this case.

My interview with Larry Williams this afternoon is also available from Newstalk ZB (audio, 5 min).

If it’s so urgent that this situation is cleared up, and Labour are so convinced that they’re right, I would welcome them to join us at the High Court and agree to put this case through in urgency. That way, we’d sort out once and for all who is right and who is wrong. Maybe Labour doesn’t want to know who is wrong.

UPDATE: David Farrar also had his say on Newstalk ZB this evening (audio, 5 min).

There’s a story on Stuff this morning, $30 for Pledge Card - Only $824,970 To Go, which talks about two pledge card auctions on Trade Me. The first was Labour’s own auction, which received two bids and 1500 page views and during which the vendor refused to answer any of the buyers’ questions. The second was my auction to raise funds for this case, which so far has received 66 bids up to $425 and 32,000 page views and is still going.

The Herald on Sunday is reporting that some Labour MPs might not be able to afford the pledge card reparations bills that they’re about to be landed with.

South Auckland list MP David Hereora told the Herald on Sunday yesterday he was not sure whether he could pay the entire amount in one hit, and might have to look at some sort of time-payment arrangement. He was still working out what he afford to pay back and said “that may mean paying it off… it all depends on how rich or broke you are I suppose”.

If someone on $125,000 can’t scrape together $5k over the next six months then they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near the country’s finances.

David Farrar has helpfully suggested that tax cuts might put a bit more much-needed cash into hard-up Labour members’ pockets.

It’s time to pay - in more ways than one. The Herald reports that Labour MPs will be forced to stump up for the pledge card and the rest of their outrageous thievery.

Labour’s 50 MPs will be asked for next week for $435,000 to pay for illegal election spending, which many blame on top Prime Ministerial adviser Heather Simpson.

The party reckons the whip-round will bring in the rest. A common theme of directing the blame at Heather Simpson seems to be emerging, although…

No MP who wants a future in the party would dare to publicly criticise Heather Simpson. She is “untouchable”, as one MP put it yesterday, because of the complete confidence Helen Clark has in her.

But if confidence in both Clark AND Simpson were to slip…

The knife is really put in by Fran O’Sullivan, also in the Herald, in her column Clark Damaged Goods After Battle of Helengrad. I won’t quotes bits of it - you have to go and read the whole thing. Go. Read it and enjoy.

And then bring on the firing squad.

There’s a pledge card for sale on Trade Me. Proceeds towards this case. Make a bid or just ask a question.

The New Zealand Herald editorial this morning lauds Auditor-General Kevin Brady as an honourable man who stands his ground.

Few public officials have performed their duties more bravely and honourably than the Auditor General, Kevin Brady, in investigating unlawful election spending by political parties. His report yesterday, confirming that all but one party in Parliament mis-spent taxpayers’ money promoting themselves in last year’s election campaign, was a powerful example of an independent watchdog standing up for the public.

and

It is hard to recall an instance of a public servant, an officer of Parliament no less, being subjected to the menace and derision heaped on Mr Brady since his draft view was leaked in mid-year. The Labour Party and its leader, Helen Clark, in particular, reacted with a venom that has been well documented…

and concludes

Without Mr Brady’s integrity, independence and fortitude, they might never have got to the bottom of what was, truly, a scandalous episode. His refusal to be cowed makes him a leading contender for any accolade of New Zealander of the Year, 2006.

Well done indeed, Mr Brady.

Labour has some fundraising to do, so if you’d like to buy an over-inflated balloon I’m sure Dr Cullen would be happy to separate you from your cash. It’s something he’s fairly adept at.

As a side note, that Parliamentary crest on the flag is fulfilling an important role communicating Labour’s policies (i.e., to spend your money against your will at every opportunity). No, that’s not right - it’s an optical illusion, it doesn’t exist. What are you talking about? Oh my God! Look at those weird religious people over there being all creepy and wearing funny clothes.

Michael Cullen has just confirmed, during this afternoon’s question time, that Labour will pay back the money they misappropriated.

UPDATE: Labour’s press release.

Now it’s time to get on with the apologies and the firings of those responsible. As the Speaker notes in her report, paying the money back doesn’t make its spending any less illegal.

Interesting to note that the Prime Minister is not in the House, letting Michael Cullen take the heat as so often happens when there’s trouble in the air.

The Office of the Speaker has released the Speaker’s response to the Auditor-General’s report. The document is available at the Office of the Speaker’s site.

The attendant press release is also available.

The Speaker says there “appeared to have been a genuine misunderstanding” and that there is “no evidence of any intention not to comply”.

The primary recommendation from the Speaker is for “validating” legislation and follows this up by saying that “reinbursement is not required and nor is it normal or common practice.”

The Auditor-General’s report has been released. Details and download are available at the AG’s site.

Amounts found to be outside the appropriation:

The Herald has an editorial today, in anticipation of the release of the Auditor-General’s report, called How Labour Might Fudge the Issue.

It discusses how Labour has manufactured a “problem” with election funding under which to hide their blatant thieving of public money to fund their propaganda. The editorial suggests that Labour will set up some sort of committee to figure out where the lines between government information and political propaganda are, fail to do so, and that the conclusion will be public funding for everything.

The public, though, should not fall for it. Fair-minded people could easily agree on the distinction. It is easy to recognise advertising that is intended to promote a public service rather than the political interest of its sponsors. We do not need to sacrifice information services, or pay for political parties’ election pitches, for the sake of Labour’s deserved embarrassment today.

State funding of political parties would be a travesty. The idea that Labour can be caught up to their elbows in the till to the tune of eight hundred thousand dollars and that the answer to this is to reward them with a couple of million is so outrageously offensive it beggars belief that anyone could seriously suggest it.

Note: The Herald website now has a useful summary page for all of their stories on the pledge card saga.