cheats

Naughty Neigh Neigh

Jacinda Ardern hasn’t had a good start to her campaign so far.

Fresh from getting pinged by Cameron Brewer for putting up her election signs on Saturday night despite an instruction from Council that election signs before midnight on the 26th were illegal, she’s in hot water again.

This time, for gaming with the rules about hoarding numbers.  She’s only allowed on sign per public site.

Typical with Labour MPs, who don’t think laws apply to them, she had three here at Cox’s Bay Park.

Two other signs were carried away by Council officers, who proudly told bystanders that non-compliant signs would be removed by Council, and the owner of them fined.

Good on them for enforcing the by-laws.

At $300 a piece, Jacinda, can you really afford to keep breaking the law?

Attorney General material?

I’m no lawyer, but the guy who wants to be Attorney General is.

Perhaps my readers would be interested in debating this interpretation of the law by Mr Chauvel.

Chauvel said in a media statement today he did not believe he breached the rules.

“As to the Commission’s view that the publication lacks a promoter statement, it is utterly clear from the census that I am its author,” Chauvel said.

“The Act does not expressly require the use of the words ‘authorised by’ but there can be no doubt that the publication was authorised by me.”

Chauvel said he respects the commission’s “right to reach a different view” and said further publications will comply with its interpretations of the Act.

Poor old Charles Chauvel. No contrition and blaming someone else for the predicament he is in and all for the want of two little words and an address.

Labour's legal problems

Last night I released the letter from the Electoral Commission about my complaint about Labour’s election advertisments. They have referred the matter to the Police for prosecution.

I note that in the letter from the Electoral Commission, there is the following statement:

“Was not authorised in writing by the party secretary of the Labour Party prior to publication.”

In other words, the Electoral Commission believes that Labour has broken the “Brethren Clause” which Labour was responsible for introducing.

This is no minor matter.

It means that the Goffice, did not have authorisation from the Party to publish any election advertisements at all.

And to make it worse, Grant Robertson embarrassingly named one Phillip Bruce Goff as the unauthorised publisher of these illegal election advertisements:

“Despite the absence of a formal promoter statement, the pamphlet did include in a prominent way the name and contact details of the party leader, so there could be no doubt as to its author,” Grant Robertson said.

The Electoral Commission guidance on the written consent issue is as clear as it gets:

Be aware that if something is deemed to be an election advertisement that promotes a candidate or party, then it must have the prior written  authorisation of the candidate or party.

The costs of any advertisements published during the regulated period that promote a candidate or party will count towards both the candidate’s and the  party’s election expenses.

You don’t need to give yourself written authorisation to publish your candidate advertisements but if your publications encourage or persuade voters to vote for your party, you must have written authorisation from the party secretary.

There are two reasons for these requirements:

  • firstly, it provides candidates and parties a power of veto over who is able to promote them through election advertising;
  • secondly, if a third party wants to promote you by publishing advertisements during the regulated period, they must have your prior written authorisation, because it will count as part of your election expenses.

So what this means is that the Goffice, and Phillip Bruce Goff in particular, have broken another law.  Namely, that the Parliamentary arm of the Labour Party was not officially authorised to be sending out election ads.  Logically, this means that the Parliamentary arm of the Labour Party and Phil Goff himself are liable for any fines – up to $40,000 on each count.

This is amateur-hour stuff.  It’s a basic matter that Labour should have sorted out long before the Goffice started pumping out tens of thousands of taxpayer funded election ads.

Given that everyone knew about the strategy to use taxpayer funding ‘to benefit the LP’,  the sheer incompetence of not sorting out this simple piece of paperwork beggars belief.

So what are they up for so far?

Failing to include a promoter statement x2 = $80,000 maximum
Failing to get written consent x2 = $80,000 maximum

So the Parliamentary arm of the Labour Party (read:taxpayer)  or Phil Goff himself, could be liable for up to $160,000 in fines.

More on Mike Smith

Mike Smith used to be the General Secretary of the Labour Party. Now he blogs at The Standard and runs the Fabian Society.

Earlier today I blogged about Mike Smith whining about political funding. This is of course the same Mike Smith who lied about the pledge card.  He promised election officials it would be included in the Labour spending cap before the election in 2005 – but then went back on his word.  If he had actually honoured his promise, Labour’s overspending in 2005 would have been laid bare.  This is as serious as it gets in terms of election breaches.  Of course, Labour later legislated to validate this illegal activity.

This is the same Mike Smith who the Electoral Commission has busted before breaching rules:

The Electoral Commission ruled Labour secretary Mike Smith broke the law by using the party, rather than his home, address on a promotional CD and a taxpayer-funded Labour brochure was caught for not carrying authorisation.

So know that when Mike Smith talks about election spending and the rules, his default position is to lie, cheat and steal in order to benefit the Labour party and disadvantage the taxpayer and their political opponents.

Tagged:

A response from the Electoral Commission

A response to my email complaint has been received:

electoral commission response

 

Dear Lockwood

Hon Dr Lockwood Smith
Speaker of the House of Representatives

By blog and email

Re: Parliamentary Services Funded Travel being used for Party Business

Dear Dr Smith,

Could you please clarify the rules around the use of Parliamentary Services funded travel where MPs are predominantly travelling to campaign.

The example I have in mind is MPs travelling to swing seats during the next four months to campaign on behalf of their party’s candidate.

In the event that MPs are breaking the rules around the use of parliamentary services funding to campaign could you please inform me what steps you will be taking to recover the costs from those who have breached the rules?

Should you choose not to recover these costs could you please inform me what steps I can personally take to recover these funds on behalf of the New Zealand tax payer.

Further would you be able to inform me of whether I should refer these breaches to the Electoral Commission if this spending is not included in Party’s electoral returns.

Yours faithfully

 

Cameron Slater
Whaleoil

More Labour lies

Labour continues to use taxpayer funds to lie to the population.

There “Not for Sale” flyers are still being distributed.

An astute reader noticed that the fifth bullet point says:

It is obvious from articles in the media yesterday that CGT will apply to the family home – where a person works from home or has a home office.
This is just another example of the Labour party using taxpayer funds to lie to the public of New Zealand. They say “Never” on their brochure but actually never doesn’t mean never, it means maybe.

 

Matt McCarten – Tax Cheat

I can do more than repeat what No Right Turn says:

If you’re a left-wing union organiser, who opposes corporate tax cuts and favours higher taxes on the rich, you’d be consistent and pay your fair share, right? Wrong:

Inland Revenue is chasing unionist Matt McCarten’s Unite Support Services Ltd. for $150,750 in unpaid taxes after the department forced the company into liquidation last month.McCarten’s vehicle, which supplied administrative support services to the youth-orientated union Unite Inc., was put into liquidation by a High Court order last month after the tax department pursued it for “failure to provide for taxation,” according to the first liquidator’s report.

“Failure to provide for taxation” is a polite way of saying “couldn’t be arsed paying”. Which makes McCarten a hypocrite on a grand scale. As Commissioner of Inland Revenue Robert Russell so eloquently said this morning,

[p]eople who are non-compliant are basically stealing from their neighbours.

McCarten should stop doing that, and start paying his fair share. Otherwise, he’s no different to the rich pricks he rails against.

Clearly Matt McCarten thinks taxes are for “Other People” to pay.

Keeping Stock has some very good questions that Matt McCarten needs to answer.

Tagged:

A reply from the Electoral Commission

I got this reply from the Electoral Commission today:

Dear Mr Slater

Thank you for your e-mail of 20 July 2011 laying a complaint that a Labour Party flyer was recently distributed to electors in the Henderson area.

The Electoral Commission is currently considering the complaint and will write to you further once we have concluded our consideration of the matter.

Yours sincerely

Kristina Temel
Electoral Commission

 

Dear Electoral Commission

Mr Robert Peden
Chief Electoral Officer

By blog and email: [email protected]

Re: Labour’s Election Advertising

Dear Mr Peden,

I am writing to lay an offiical complaint about the brochure the Labour Party has recently sent to electors in West Auckland. I have attached a scan overleaf.

(Image 1, Image 2)

It was distributed on 20 July 2011 in and around the Henderson, Auckland area.

It does not have an authorisation statement, which I believe is a legal requirement for any election advertising.

The Labour party also undertook to discontinue to send out these types of brochures in a press release of 9 July shortly after the Electoral Commission referred another brochure to the Police for prosecution. Their spokesman, Grant Robertson said:

“Labour has advised the commission that it will abide by the commission’s interpretation of the legislation. It has withdrawn the pamphlet from circulation, along with another similar publication. Between now and the election, it will apply a wide interpretation of the phrase ‘election advertisement’, and include formal promoter statements in the terms recommended by the commission on all such material.”

As you can see from the attachments, the Labour party has neither withdrawn the pamphlet nor complied with the law regarding promotor statements.

Could you please inform me whether this advertisement is legal, and if not what the steps are to ensure Labour are prosecuted for breaching the law.

In the event that Labour are not prosecuted through official channels could you please inform me of my rights to take a private prosecution against Labour for breaching the law.

Yours faithfully

 

Cam Slater
www.whaleoil.co.nz