Colin Craig is a litigious fool.
He is now suing the Electoral Commission…all over an insignificant sum.
He will spend much more than that in order to extract it, even if he succeeds he will lose.
Then again he has spent millions of dollars over the past few years perfecting the art of losing.
Conservative Party leader Colin Craig is challenging the Electoral Commission’s allocation of time and money for broadcasting programmes.
Mr Craig has instructed his lawyer to apply for judicial review of the Electoral Commission’s decision. He believes his party should get more funding than Act. Read more »
A few months ago, both the Internet Party and Labour declared they were going after “the missing million” voters. Turns out, most of them have been found!
More than 43,000 New Zealanders are missing from the electoral roll just over a month out from the September 20 election, the Electoral Commission says.
The commission mailed enrolment update packs to everyone on the electoral roll at the end of June, asking them to check their enrolment details. Read more »
You may recall Hone trying to get us all to pay for his election hoardings going pear shaped. As a result he had to take down all his signs with the Parliamentary crest on them.
Apart from one halfhearted attempt, one reader can’t see any change just yet, in spite of a whole week passing since the issue was exposed by Whaleoil.
Homewrecker Anna Lorck is upset because Craig Foss had a holiday in Hawaii.
Obviously the memo from David Cunliffe about staying positive and not sledging was on the same courier truck as the Party Vote signs for Napier with David Cunliffe’s photo on them.
Meanwhile, in the neighbouring Tukituki electorate, Labour candidate Anna Lorck said sitting MP Mr Foss’ family holiday in Hawaii last week shows he’s “too relaxed” about the election. Mr Foss denied the claim,but said his family always came first.
Ms Lorck said Mr Foss was “lying back in his deckchair and drinking pina coladas” on the tropical island while she was busy on the campaign trail.
Mr Foss confirmed he had spent “a good week” with his family at Waikiki Beach in Honolulu, Hawaii, up until Wednesday, July 16.
“We had a family holiday.”
However, he denied the holiday showed he was too relaxed about the upcoming election.
“I work hard for Hawke’s Bay families and I am backing the Bay each and every day.
“So much for Labour’s pledge to not be nasty.”
Greenpeace is suing the Electoral Commission because the Commission has said that their advertising is a political advert and must contain a promoter statement.
Environmental groups are taking the Electoral Commission to court over a ruling on a climate change campaign.
Greenpeace, Forest and Bird, WWF and others launched the Climate Voter initiative last month.
But the Electoral Commission says the campaign counts as an “election advertisement”, and is therefore subject to rules around wording of communications and spending restrictions.
Greenpeace says the ruling could gag grassroots advocacy groups – and the organisations are planning to take a freedom of speech test case to the High Court.
This is why we need an Independent Commission Against Corruption, 113 cases and not a single prosecution
More than a hundred cases have been referred to the Police for prosecution by the Electoral Commission and not a single one has even been investigated.
These are breaches of our electoral laws and are about as serious as it can be when it comes to protecting democracy, and yet the Police just don’t give a stuff.
The Justice Minister’s been taken by surprise by the number of Electoral Act breaches that have been referred to police over the past three years.
Figures supplied by the Electoral Commission reveal 113 cases have been referred to police for investigation since the beginning of 2011 – not one has resulted in a prosecution.
It’s a figure Justice Minister Judith Collins wasn’t aware of.
Ms Collins doesn’t know the basis on which the Electoral Commission referred the cases to police, and says it’s something she’d have to find out more about before she could express an opinion.
It is outrageous that there are so many breaches, many by the Labour party that remain uninvestigated much less prosecuted. Read more »
The Herald on Sunday has managed to get their hands on a signed statement from Donghua Liu and met the challenge issued by David Cunliffe earlier in the week to put up or shut up.
Donghua Liu has put numbers, large numbers, to his claims of donations to the Labour party.
Millionaire businessman Donghua Liu spent more than $150,000 on the previous Labour government, including $100,000 on a bottle of wine signed by former prime minister Helen Clark at a party fundraiser.
The embarrassing revelations are contained in a signed statement from Liu, which the Herald on Sunday has obtained.
They come at the end of a horror week for Labour, already under pressure after the New Zealand Herald revealed that Liu paid $15,000 for a book at the same fundraiser in 2007. Labour has said it had no record of any donations from Liu. And leader David Cunliffe had to fight to keep his job after revelations he wrote a letter for Liu’s residency, despite previous denials.
This is getting serious. Labour still claims to have no knowledge of the donations and it is almost certain now that they have filed false declarations of donations in 2007.
Liu’s signed statement was dated May 3, two days after Williamson’s resignation. It said:
• Liu paid “close to $100,000” for wine at a 2007 Labour Party fundraiser;
• That he spent $50-60,000 hosting then-labour minister Rick Barker on a cruise on the Yangtze River in China in 2007; and
• That Liu visited Barker in Hawke’s Bay in 2006, having dinner with him at an exclusive lodge and then meeting for breakfast the next morning. Liu said he made a donation to Hawke’s Bay Rowing, which Barker was associated with.
Barker previously told the Herald that he could barely remember having dinner.
Last night Barker, now a regional councillor, said the revelations came “as a surprise and a complete reversal” of Liu’s previous comments.
This came in via the tipline and provides an interesting take on the judgement against John Banks. The Wylie J judgement reads as a decision of someone trying to justify a predetermined conclusion, but doing so unsuccessfully….
I read “the” judgement, and was left with the sense that Wylie J seemed to work more on a balance of probabilities, than on reaching a verdict “beyond reasonable doubt”. He appears to have ended up using a civil case requirement of standard of proof, where in a criminal case the higher standard should actually have been used.
This also really does seem to be flavoured (aside from Wylie J’s initial assertion that his judgement would not be) with a real sense of a lack of actual innocence until “proven” guilty. I presently believe all that for the following reasons…
Not knowing any more of the facts, than was contained in the .pdf of the judgement, I was surprised that Wylie J accepted the way campaign finances were run, yet, did not draw the necessary conclusions from that, and other facts which he apparently considers established, yet was able to find Mr Banks guilty.
i) No one disputes that it was a Dotcom staffer, or connected person(s), who made the anonymous drop box deposits in Albany. Amazingly that person has remained anonymous to this date(?), because ..Dotcom’s finance officer of the time certainly did not make the deposits in Queenstown as he had thought.
ii) With the deposits for Dotcom not showing any name even on a campaign bank statement
iii)Dotcom’s deposits were made some full nine days after a lunch date there with Mrs Banks, again making it even less clear who the anonymous deposits were from.
iv) Wylie J appears to accept that at no relevant point did Mr Banks have the opportunity to read the campaign’s account bank statements, nor to see the bank account online, receive any related oral information from a campaign finance officer, nor seen the table of donations in the final return.
And so, Wylie J initially to me at least, appears to fail to identify – where did his supposed information come from – that Mr Banks had knowledge that Dotcom or related, had actually made any donation(s) to his campaign at all?
v) On the facts supplied by Wylie J in his judgement – in the trial, the only source “recorded” for Mr Banks to have any possible knowledge of any donation Dotcom actually might have eventually actually made, was inadequately from Dotcom having asked Mr Banks twice, on his behalf – had Mr Banks cleared the cheque(s)? Read more »