Thursday, 31 August 2006

"Pay it back" say NZers

NZ HERALD: Pay it back, Kiwis tell politicians in latest poll
[Thursday, 31 Aug]
An overwhelming majority of New Zealanders want political parties to pay back money if it has been unlawfully spent on getting elected, according to the latest New Zealand Herald DigiPoll.
* Full details in today's [Friday's] New Zealand Herald.
I think that is what's called "traction for an issue." Roll on the court case. [Hat tip Adolf]

UPDATE 1:NZ HERALD: Vast Majority Want Parties to Pay Back Unlawfully Spent Money [Friday, 1 Sept]
In an unmistakably clear message from voters, 81 per cent of respondents to the latest Herald-DigiPoll survey said political parties should repay unlawfully spent money. Significantly, more than three-quarters of Labour supporters - 75.8 per cent - want the money paid back, and only 13.5 per cent support the party's idea of passing a law to validate the spending.
UPDATE 2: Would Labour have the numbers to retrospectively make their over-spending and misappropriation legal? David Farrar has done the numbers on a parliamentary vote, and the numbers would be tight. For both sides. 60 against. 58 in favour. United-No-Future holding the balance. Three assumptions in this analysis might need challenging however:
  1. "Now even though Rodney Hide has spoken against the AG's report, I can not believe he and Heather would vote for retrospective legislation such as this. It would quite simply be the death of ACT."
    You would certainly hope so, but remember that Rodney has sixty-thousand or so riding on this.
  2. "... with all the emphasis the Greens put on principles, I can't imagine they could hold their heads up high and vote for it."
    Really? I can, and I'll wager many readers here can imagine such a thing. A few more insulated hot water cylinders, or a Ford Fiesta or two for Ministerial limos, and they're anyone's.
  3. "... any MP who has not paid money back will have to make a declaration to Parliament under Standing Order 166 that they stand to directly financially benefit from the legislation. Now how will it look to have half the Labour Caucus declaring they will personally gain from a law and then vote for it."
    How will it look to them? I reckon it will look to them like they can keep their feet under the table for two more years. No problem at all -- the dishonest bastards won't even need to hold their nose.
Apparently David has a less jaundiced view of the venality of politicians than I do.

RELATED: Politics-NZ, Darnton V Clark


  1. That beltway just keeps on growing...

  2. Rodney may vote for the 'Retrospective Legislation' - at least $5000 of his $60k would have been spent in Epsom, pushing him over the $20k limit for electoral candidates. (He spent about $17k, according to his return.)

    While the time limit to bring a case of corrupt practice against him has passed, he would be in the same position as Labour - he stole his way back into Parliament and doesn't have the moral authority to be there in his role.

  3. yes I thought DPF's analysis was VERY wishful thinking.


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.