Retrospective Law Under Urgency
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).
October 16th, 2006 at 8:43 pm
If the retrospective legislation is enacted does this leave the way open to invlidate the result as the convention that MPs do not vote on anything that benefits them personally? Also can National campaign that in government they would invalidate such legislation and make all MPs liable personally for their respective parties debts with interest and be barred from office until their debt be discharged?
October 16th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Oh Bernard
I did have my reservations whether the deferment of the judicial conference should have been agreed by plaintiff. Now they have bought time to strategise and retro legislate. We won’t let them get away with it will we !!
October 16th, 2006 at 10:03 pm
They’re just unstoppable.
“Well, fine, we’ll pay it back, but we did nothing wrong, and we are going to put a bill through making it all ok, on urgency. Oh and now we want to make election donations illegal and it’s all those damn brethren, golfers and right wing bloggers.”
October 16th, 2006 at 10:22 pm
It;s really simple
if this is not corrupt, then no validation is necessary
if this is corrupt, then validation is yet more corruption.
October 16th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Darnton
listening to the interview
why didn’t you give a straight answer to the question about “what does it mean when you win” and “whould this go away if labour paid it back last year”
the answer is: if the High Court finds this is illegal, then every member of the party campaign team and labour cabinet must resign
They should have resigned a year ago when this was pointed out
and they wont resign even if they loose.
BUT paying it back changes nothing
you need to say this now.
October 17th, 2006 at 4:43 am
http://stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3830636a10,00.html
MPs who give with one hand will get pay rise in the other
it’s not paying it back if it doesn’t cost you anything
October 17th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Rumpole - no.
see here:
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/lbj/2006/oct/16/last_one
The convention you cite doesn’t exist.
October 17th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
LBJ
Thanks for that. If Labour members in breach of the spending limit fail to declare their interest is there any remedy or is it just tough? Can/should National publicly announce their intention to invalidate the validating legislation if elected to government with the express intention of prosecuting the offenders and demanding repayment with interest?
October 18th, 2006 at 8:34 am
Rumpole -
of course they can.
in fact they could promise to reintrouce the death penalty and execute every labout party member and their extended families.
now *that’s* a third world dictatorship we could really be proud off
(OK, well, to be really proud, take up out to the tip & shoot ‘em
without any validating legislation)