The Sausage Factory
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.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
While I don’t remember exactly what he said, I remember Chauvel mentioning liability etc and I believe he was refering to your case. I think he accidentaly revealed Labours true intentions behind the urgency as you have indicated.
If I get time i’ll try go through the records and find what it was he said exactly.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Don’t forget it wasn’t just Labour that explicitly used Parliament to kill a lawsuit that they knew they couldn’t win in the High Court. It was New Zealand First, United Future and the Progressives as well. And the Green Party and the Maori Party did nothing to prevent it happening.
October 18th, 2006 at 8:49 pm
BD
Is there any chance you could take the wedge of VRWC donations and invest it in getting a legal bod to hound over the last 17 years of election returns. Ideally arriving at a grand total by party.
The total sum of the tax payer money that has been swept under the mat by this legislation should be known. Some might even think it would validate the validation, I think otherwise.
October 18th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
I couldn’t be more concerned at the path this Government is going down. Actually the only thing that worries me more is the people I know who seem to think Labour did the right thing.
What happens next with the lawsuit?
Was cool to meet you today by the way. Not sure if I can eat another banana for a while though!
October 18th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
I think it is sad, Darnton, that you are letting this law stop your lawsuit. Them passing this law doesn’t change the fact that the spending was illegal when they done it despite Labour’s thought that this new law makes it legal at the time. The cold, hard, and simple truth is that the past cannot be changed so it was illegal then and thus Labour need to be held accountable. If you drop your case now because of this new law you are letting evil win. You can never let evil win. To do so is to allow it to do even worse.
October 18th, 2006 at 11:12 pm
Shame.
You have worked for this so hard Bernard.
It is hard to come up with the right words. You have been slapped in the face by corrupt, immoral thieves, who regulate to justify their crimes.
October 19th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Hello all
I have just read and signed the online petition:
“No Royal Assent to Electoral Act Violations”
http://www.PetitionOnline.com/nzgg/
I personally agree with what this petition says, and I think you might
agree, too. If you can spare a moment, please take a look, and consider
signing yourself.
Best wishes,
Tim
If this doesnt work i suggest storming parliment and taking helen hostage.
Not that anyone would pay a ransom though…
October 19th, 2006 at 7:56 am
You should still take your action to the High Court. There are judges who will have the guts to step in an deal to politicians who step in on their turf. Then take to the Court of Appeal, then the Supreme Court. In other words, go for it!
Any judge will jump at the opportunity of slamming retrospective law that serves self interest. They would be dusting off the legal history books, including Magna Carta and Blackstone, with glee! I think they would be looking forward to asking a few questions of Heather Simpson as well.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Careful, Tim: There have been two people charged with sedition this year alone.
October 19th, 2006 at 9:16 am
Correct me if I’m wrong, but does this not mean that Labour has now over-spent its election funding by $800,000? Can they not be held accountable for that?
October 19th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Sorry SPAM I forgot it was illegal to make a joke in NZ!
Is there any LEGAL way to force a re-election?
What about a public NO CONFIDENCE VOTE?
How about any LEGAL way to overturn the legislation?
October 19th, 2006 at 10:57 am
There are judges who will have the guts to step in an deal to politicians who step in on their turf. Then take to the Court of Appeal, then the Supreme Court.
Judges appointed by, and in courts created by, the current government.
This is why we cannot have another election for a while. We need caretaker administration now - with a mandate to fix things: including judges. And that probably means the privy council back; it means the end of the maori seats; not to mention real spending reform. And probably FPP back too.
October 19th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Since you were there, I have a tatical queston:
did national offer any pairs to the government - and if so, WHY?
The right thing to do in this situation was clearly to promise pairs, then break that promise on the final vote. It did for Whitlam, and if Brash missed that opportunity to bring down Helen, he really does deserve no respect whatsoever.
Is there any LEGAL way to force a re-election?
What about a public NO CONFIDENCE VOTE?
nope. Parliamentary noconfidence votes only.
Which the current government has just won handily
NZ (unlike say california) has no recall provision.
How about any LEGAL way to overturn the legislation?
The GG could refuse to sign it. That would be legal: it would also be a consitutional crisis. The GG could simply withdraw the warrants from Labour and appoint a caretaker national unity government. Again, on the boundaries of constutionality.
Which is why this lawsuit is so important: because this government has acted outside the consitution since September 2005, when the PM refused to resign when the Chief Electoral Officer called the election corrupt
First we exhaust every legal means to remove them government.
All that is left are these lawsuits, and a CIR (I guess).
Then we must think of the tree of freedom.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
That petition is linked in my blog (click my name and look if you want and please leave comments). I have been avidly watching the petition since I signed it and it is now up to 8662. I implore everyone that comes here to sign the petition and get it above 10,000, which would be very impressive for such a small country. Then get everyone you know who can access internet to sign it.
October 19th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
sinner - the New Zealand Parliament no longer uses pairs. Votes are cast by party whips on party votes, not all MPs have to be in Wellington for their votes to be cast (up to 1/4 can be away, I think); this was among the changes to standing orders after the introduction of MMP.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:04 pm
Bernard - keep the legal eagles on the case. Another avenue will present itself to have a crack at Helen. Labour and allies have now said they are above the law and that makes them even more vulnerable. The anger amongst people at yesterdays proceeding is extraordinary and the issue will not die. Good luck and keep up the good work.
October 19th, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Advance Australia Fair……
Everybody sing along!
October 19th, 2006 at 3:09 pm
Keep the court case going. If all else fails try section 12 of the Bill of Rights that mentions the Right to vote in “genuine … elections”. If one party has access and the right to use $824 524 of free money, which other parties don’t have acess to the election is not genuine. I’d love to see labour try and rush through legislation which states “Previous government actions which may have violated the New Zealand bill of Rights Act 1990 are now validated” and “Section 12 of the Bill of Rights is now repealed.”
October 19th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Aww crap I’m going to have wear one of those stupid hats with the corks now aren’t I.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:01 pm
the New Zealand Parliament no longer uses pairs
damn. I wasn’t sure about the electorate seats.
So this is just another aspect of the Labour gerrymander;
the Whitlam precedent (which could have saved us yesterday) was on their mind when they made that change.
Hopefully the GG will decide not to sign. appoint Brash as caretaker
and this - as so many other things - can be fixed.
October 19th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Regretfully I think we all know that the GG will not be another Kevin Brady and if he fails to act it will demonstrate the post is redundant aas he has no role. The public could of course petition for Kevin Brady to be awarded the highest NZ honour next time - that would not amuse Helen!!
October 19th, 2006 at 8:30 pm
Another thought - Don could publicaly announce using taxpaymers money of course that if elected he would invalidate Labours legislation, prosecute every MP and official who was party to Labours overspending thus a conviction would remove every Labour MP involved, insistence on repayment personally with IRD interest & penalties to bankrupt them & the party and for good measure remove their right to a parliamentary pension if they have a criminal conviction.
October 20th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Oh I totally support that!!!
October 20th, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Keep the Court case going. The NZ courts have hinted that retropsective legislation will be read down - see R v Pora and R v Poumako. Sinner there is not much wrong with our judiciary - at least with respect to holding the executive to account. The highest court in the land was very strong in the F&S case and the newly constituted Supreme Court has consistenly ruled against the Government in the Zaoui litigations. Keep challenging the actions of this corrupt government - it is time for a change.
October 20th, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Rumpole
that is what is required: I’d go futher and ban every member of the Labour party not only from voting, but from receiving any public office, civil service job, benefit, use of public heath and education services etc etc.
an example must be made.
Sinner there is not much wrong with our judiciary - at least with respect to holding the executive to account.
We shall see. the highest officer in the judicary is not the Attorney General or Solicitor Genearl but the Governor General. We will know if there is justice soon enough,