Friday, 11 August 2006

Party stooges defending Pledge Card corruption

A friend has pointed out that of all the letters in today's Herald on Labour's misappropriation of taxpayers' money to pay for their Pledge Card, only one supported the government. The author was one Graham Hill.

Who's he? Just the spouse of Joan Caulfield (who had 5 children to former husband Jim Neanderton) and who is currently electorate secretary to the MP for Mt Albert.

Surprise ! Surprise!

Is there anyone genuinely in support of this corruption? Or just Graham and Joan and other party stooges.

As my friend Bernard Darnton says, the money appropriated for the Prime Minister's Office is for the running of the office, not to run for that office, and the Prime Minister was told exactly that before the election by the the Electoral Commission. There never was any "confusion." Quite simply, the Labour Party chose to lie to the Electoral Commission then, and to the public now.

Roll on Darnton v Clark.

UPDATE 1: The normally mild-mannered David Farrar lets 'em have it in two posts today:

1. 'Legalised Theft':
The Auditor-General and Solictor-General find that Labour's $446,000 pledge cards are electioneering (wow what a surprise), so what is Labour's response? Not to pay it back, no. But to propose state funding of political parties, so they can do it again in future, without challenge.
2. 'Labour to legislate to over-rule Auditor-General':

I never thought I would read this in NZ. Michael Cullen plans to introduce legislation so that Labour do not have to pay back the $446,000 pledge card which has been deemed election advertising by almost every competent authority in the land, such as:

* Chief Electoral Officer
* Electoral Commission
* Secretary of Justice
* Auditor-General
* Solicitor-General

NZPA quotes Dr Cullen as saying on National Radio today that Parliament may have to "validate the expenditure".

If this is not corruption, what is?

... It's ironic. You buy the election by deliberating over-spending. And then you use your continuance in office to amend the law to validate what you did.
And Bernard Darnton doesn't hold back either:

Having been caught up to their elbows in the till by the draft Auditor-General’s report, what is Labour’s predictable response?

Caught illegally taking public money to pay for their electioneering, is their response to admit fault, pay back the stolen money and promise not to do it again? No; it’s to change the law to make their pilfering legal.

If this isn't corruption, then what is? I can imagine Robert Mugabe is taking notes.

UPDATE 2: Joan Caulfield's name corrected.

"Corruption" - Just Left (Jordan Carter, Labour Party apologist)
Darnton Vs Clark website

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour, Darnton v Clark


  1. I thought her name was "Caulfield", not Schofield.

  2. Ah Daves just bitter and twisted because he can't take all his toys on the plane with him and he'll be forced to watch movies and play playstation for 12 hours.

    Between that and the babes bringing you stuff all the time I must say it does sound awful.

  3. Thanks 'Anonymous,' you're quite right. Now corrected.

    A rare example of an anonymous comment being more valuable than one posted under someone's name.


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.