Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Damian Christie,
You made the same insinuation about Lockwood, Graeme. Is this because a) Lockwood will resign and b) Banks will get kicked out or c) You don’t envisage the legislation will get to final reading until the next term of Parliament after which both a) and b) will be true anyway.
(a) Lockwood because "everyone knows" that he's going to be appointed High Commissioner to London sometime later this year, and will accordingly resign from Parliament, so while he may be around for the first reading, the chance of his become around for the second has to be low.
(b) Not "kicked out" so much, but Banks may find the pressure a bit much and resign. Although this one was more of a joke, because I don't see him leaving before the end of the term, even if he ceases to be a minister, but welcome other views, as I don't totally rule it out - National would win the by-election, so overall numbers wouldn't change for more than a few weeks.
(c) I suspect if there is a third reading, it will be during this parliament, unless the numbers don't hold post select committee so Wall decided to delay it until next term in hopes for a change. -
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Emma Hart,
Why is John Banks still officially on the "undecided" list?
It's not certain whether he'll still be an MP at the time of the vote(s)?
:-)
-
Up Front: The Up-Front Guides: The…, in reply to Will de Cleene,
ll conscience issues; booze, gay marriage, medical cannabis
I would welcome your arguments on why you consider these matters to be issues of conscience.
-
Legal Beagle: Johndotbanks - the law is…, in reply to Peter Green,
What does this mean for Key’s “complied with the law” test? Presumably “avoided scrutiny until the time limit expired” passes somewhat under that bar?
This mean police probably think John Banks did not comply with the law. They haven't expressly said that, saying that John Banks did not knowingly file a false donation return, and it was too late for us to bother investigating whether he had broken the law by failing to take due care.
That said, even if Police think Banks did break the law, but escapes prosecution because of a limitation clause, that's only their view. They're no judges, and they're not infallible. Banks has a legal right to be presumed innocent and any offending he engaged in was so minor that it is considered of a type we don't bother about after six months.
Maybe police got it wrong. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.
Even if John Banks knew who was donating money to him, the same can likely also be said of Len Brown. The only difference with Len Brown is that his campaign deliberately used a structure under which campaign donors' identities can be made expressly known to the candidate without being declared, and Bank's campaign did anything they might have done in a much more haphazard amateurish way.
I said that the the law was over, and it was time for politics. That's not quite true. There's also a place for the law to be fixed so this can't happen at all, whether it happened this time or not. The law should not allow secret donations, or anonymous donations, or donations made through trusts.
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to DexterX,
It really is bullshit – this stance would not be a defence for an “ordinary person” who say signed the declaration on say their tax return or signed a declaration on an application for a welfare benefit and then that return/application/declaration was found to be flawed. An ordinary person in these circumstances would be facing considerable tax penalties or a fraud charge in respect of the benefit.
The problem isn't ordinary person vs. extraordinary person. It's tax/fraud law vs. electoral law.
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to DexterX,
Hogwash – you believe that is the reality of things – Really?
No. But that is the rationale behind it.
-
Legal Beagle: On the possibilities of a…, in reply to Kyle Matthews,
How does that work in an inquisitorial system rather than adversarial Graeme? If you can be forced to take the stand as a defendant, would you be likely to still be able to refuse to answer questions?
Inquisitorial systems also recognise a right to silence and a right against self-incrimination.
Many inquisitorial systems still prohibit defendants giving sworn evidence, in the same way that common law systems used to. In such cases the defendant will be allowed to give unsworn evidence instead, but it is not compulsory.
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to merc,
Not quite the point thanks Graeme, but nevermind.
There are election petition procedures in both the Electoral Act and the Local Electoral Act now. If someone wanted to use the election petition procedure to pursue an allegation against John Banks they could have.
-
Hard News: John Banks: The volunteer did…, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
What about the UK system? They have an election court, anyone can file a petition and the court decides.
We have that too.
Show me something that says the UK Election Court still has jurisdiction 18 months after the event you're complaining of and I'll get back to you.
-
Legal Beagle: Johndotbanks - the law is…, in reply to Steve Curtis,
The tax return just asks if 'the information is true and correct'.
But the offence provision in the statute makes you responsible for it, whether you've read it or not.