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.
Labour 50; Green Party 9; Progressive 2.
New Zealand National 27; New Zealand First 13; ACT New Zealand 8; United Future 8.
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".
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
Also, I believe Craig voted for the Green Party at the last election.
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).
Political parties in NZ tend to run on the smell of an oily rag and don’t have money to retain legal departments for interpretations.
First, Labour's Party Secretary is certainly a full-time paid position.
Second, I am entirely confident there is someone like me somewhere in the Labour Party whom the party secretary could call up for a two minute chat to sound out on an issue like this.
Third, you don't need a legal team to just call up the Electoral Commission to ask when something new happens and you don't know how to deal with it.
The Electoral Commission has accepted there was no intention to deceive, and as a bequest it hardly falls into the category of corporate donations that National launders through it’s so-called “blind” trusts, which is a real, actual ongoing political corruption scandal.
Intention to deceive is not an element of the offence. Absence of intention to deceive does not provide a reasonable excuse. The offence is a strict liability offence.
And if you have any evidence at all that National is using blind trusts to hide the real source of donations, please take it to the Electoral Commission, or the police, or David Fisher. This is now illegal. In some circumstances at least, prison sentences are possible.
This number of people being exclusively made up of online National Party activists.
I'll make sure Idiot/Savant of No Right Turn is aware of his new designation:
Update: According to NewstalkZB's Felix Marwick, the Electoral Commission has accepted Labour's excuse of "confusion as to whether a bequest counts as a donation" and there will be no referral to police. So the law means nothing again. What is the point of electoral law if it is never enforced?