Tuesday, 16 May 2006

Labour bought the election with your money

The Labour Party bought the last election with taxpayers' money, knowingly overspent the legal limit, and has now leant on police to save themselves from prosecution. Before the release of documents under the Official Information Act (OIA) that was how Labour's half-million dollar spending on its pledge cards appeared. Now the OIA information has been released, the assessment seems almost certain.

David Farrar is making the material available online. Says he:

Over today, and possibly tomorrow, I am going to make a series of posts drawing on the hundreds of pages released by the Police under the OIA in relation to their decision not to charge Labour with over-spending at the last election. These will include extracts and scans of various letters and reports.

They will all be in the new category of Electoral Act, so that you can click on the series link to see them all together.

I believe that any fair person reading the documents will conclude, as I have, that the Police decision not to prosecute was based on either incompetence or cowardice - not a charge I make lightly. But the documents speak for themselves.

And so they do. Go visit, and have a good long look at how and by whom the election was bought with your money.

LINKS: Background to the series - Kiwiblog
Electoral Act Archives - Kiwiblog

TAGS: Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour


  1. Meanwhile, the links between National's campaign and the Exclusive Brethren deepen. For instance, them wanting to include Brash's picture on their "it's time to change the government" pamphlets, and being advised not to by the National Party. Then of course there's the GST muck-up.

    What good would it do to prosecute both parties? Wouldn't that just be a waste of taxpayer's money?

  2. No, the only link that deepens is the left's level of desperation.

    There is a distinction between a private group of citizens exercising their democratic rights in an election; a self declared accounting muck-up with full responsibility shouldered; and a calculated dip into the taxpayer trough by a panicking political party who were looking at defeat.

    Talking about taxpayer's money being wasted, how would the IRD treat an individual or business who mislead them to the tune of $400k? By being kind and saying its older than 6 months and it will all be too troublesome and messy? I doubt it.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.