Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to Steven Peters,
There is only one way it would happen, if one party sees it in their short term electoral interests to have the process taken out of MP’s hands more substantively, such as another Royal Commission, to settle the issue of changes to MMP.
I am reasonably confident we'd get the same answers we got from the Electoral Commission.
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to linger,
My error. I think Labour got support for the use of urgency?
Slightly more support, but still not really:
Hon Dr MICHAEL CULLEN (Leader of the House) : I move, That urgency be accorded the introduction and passing of the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill. Urgency is sought because, for the bill to be effective, it has to be passed before the next sitting day.
A party vote was called for on the question, That urgency be accorded.
Ayes 69 Labour 50; Green Party 9; United Future 8; Progressive 2.
Noes 48 New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8.
Abstentions 1 Hunt.
Motion agreed to.
-
Legal Beagle: On Consensus, in reply to linger,
Actually, that was one case where opposition support was sought and obtained.
The following is copied directly from Hansard (.pdf):
A party vote was called for on the question, That the Electoral (Vacancies) Amendment Bill be now read a third time.
Ayes 61
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.Noes 56
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.Abstentions 1
Hunt.Bill read a third time.
I'm not in a position to dispute "sought", but you're going to need to offer a heck of an argument to convince me that this constitutes "obtained".
-
Hard News: Media3: Parliament Live, in reply to Rob Hosking,
I’m amazed the Military Manoeuvres Bill is running so high.
I believe it's Richard Prosser's speech about how New Zealand First will be voting against the bill based on the threat of a Finnish invasion. Not quite virulent, but people were trying to make it happen at the time.
-
Legal Beagle: $420,259.33, in reply to Sockington McPuppet,
So the actual transactions took place immediately before and just after handover to a new general secretary. Later, under the new secretary, a correct return was filed (who thought to do that? why did they decide it was best?).
The first (and most important) transaction occurred in April, with the handover a little over three months later.
The correct return was filed in May this year, approximately 8 months after the handover. I understand the decision to do so was made during the process of preparing the annual return of donations, due by April 30 for the previous calendar year. Whether it was something picked up internally, or by the party's auditor, I don't know.
I can well imagine the new part secretary having a reasonable excuse for not declaring a $226.83 donation, but he's not on the hook for the earlier ones, so wouldn't be the person investigated or charged for those if it went to the police: that would be the old party secretary.
And like I say, I'd much prefer that the party itself carried any legal liability for errors like this.
-
Hard News: SpinCity, in reply to James W,
So they 230 number was arrived at purely to match Labour’s number?
Maybe 230 is the level at which you get a good bulk purchasing discount? Or that will fit in a certain area of casino floor that will be made available?
-
Legal Beagle: $420,259.33, in reply to Sacha,
equally unconcerned if National has a little “Oh, but it’s so complicated” brain-fade about properly disclosing over $400K in donations, and (yet again) nobody gets prosecuted.
GST, 2005
That was possibly the stupidest non-prosecution of the whole lot.
If National had been charged – and they should have been – I have every confidence that they’d have pleaded guilty.
I will also point to you to this story I wrote about the GST issue, where I point out that the error didn’t just put National over the broadcasting limit, but put them over the Electoral Act spending limit as well, and resulted in them filing a false election expense return.
ref: http://web.archive.org/web/20061123220329/http://www.sirhumphreys.com/lbj/2006/oct/14/elections
-
Legal Beagle: $420,259.33, in reply to Tom Semmens,
Craig, what I have had enough of is exquisitely detailed attempts to beat up a story about the Labour party finances masquerading as the PAS “legal beagle”. Graeme Edgeler has managed to find the time to craft almost 1350 words on this non-issue
You may prefer one of these three posts I wrote about John Banks' political finances, back when that was a thing.
-
Legal Beagle: $420,259.33, in reply to Tom Semmens,
I’m just not buying these sorts of pious little Goody Two-Shoes routines that always just coincidentally happen to focus on Labour’s finances anymore.
What aspects of National's finances do you believe have broken the law over the last few years?
Former Labour Party Secretary Mike Smith thought he found a remarkably similar one, although he had his date calculation wrong.
Also, I believe Craig voted for the Green Party at the last election.
-
Legal Beagle: $420,259.33, in reply to Kumara Republic,
One can’t fault Labour for at least playing an open card hand, unlike certain other notable organisations have filtered their donors via blind trusts. Or worse still, outrightly astroturfed.
Yes you can.
First, Labour took over a year to play that open hand.
Second, while under the old law, National filtered donations through blind trusts, Labour filtered some of their donations through solicitor's trust accounts.
You may also have noted that "Labour's" candidate for the supercity mayoralty at the last election used the same trust structure for hiding the true source of donations as National used to (which had been outlawed by that stage at the national level, but hasn't yet at the local government level).