On the subject of the 2005 election spending Bill English writes;
What About The Three Blind Mice?
The next episode of this drama will test the character and principles of Rodney Hide, Peter Dunne and Winston Peters. Labour want to pass legislation to validate everything they have done and bring in State funding of political parties. Act, NZ First and United Future all face hefty bills to repay the public money they spent on electioneering, and so far they look like they will support Labour's legislation. So, along with Helen Clark, they will all have their finger in the wind for the next few weeks testing public opinion to oblige Helen Clark and let her get away with it, or will they all have to pay the money back? You decide.
OK. By my calculation, with the backing of NZ First and the Greens alone, UF and ACT can vote against any retrospective legislation and it will still pass. Having voted against it, will their principles demand they repay sums as have National and Maori?
They will not be obliged to. And personally, as an ACT donor I wouldn't want my money being handed back to Parliamentary Services while Labour and the Greens sit on theirs. But, there is another way to look at this whole thing.
If ACT spent my tax on their yellow bus I have no complaints. Just as Labour- supporting taxpayers probably won't be too concerned about public spending on the pledgecard and Green taxpayers won't be opposed to public spending on energy pamphlets, etc. And as the funding and spending is on a pro rata basis it all works out quite neatly. The only taxpayers who are really upset are National supporters and Libertarianz voters. If National had dipped into Parliamentary office funding too then their supporters would have also got some value for their tax dollars. Libertarianz, with no parliamentary representation, never got the option.
Apart from which Bill English is hardly in a position to be questioning the principles of Hide, Dunne and Peters;
According to the Herald;
FROM THE PUBLIC PURSE
* Bill English's campaign against the Government's foreshore legislation.
* Green Party energy pamphlet.
* NZ First's foreshore poster used last election.
* Act's yellow bus.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Sorry Lindsay, I can't agree with you on this either..
I am normally an interested reader and almost always feel a strong sympathy with your views on a range of subjects.
I am usually a National voter but have supported NZFirst and Act on occasion.
Compulsory tax payer funding of "any political party" is obscene.
There would be no way to regulate the grab that an unprincipled group could engineer and take in their very own interests.
Brian, I wish I felt as clearly about this issue as you do. But I have to say I am very reluctant to pay again (and ask others to pay again) for a (poor?) spending decision party members had no hand in.
If I agreed to donate to a refund, then I have to ask myself, why am I paying? Because I didn't like my tax being nicked for misspending? I'm paying so other people can enjoy living in a democracy but never make a political contribution? I simply cannot see a satisfactory answer. Turning my back on ACT isn't it.
And what really bothers me is I suspect if National hadn't had replete coffers, based on past actions, they would'nt now be in a postion to act holier than thou.
Re the state funding of elections -not what I want to see.
Lindsay - I agree with the point that there is no reason for ACT et al to repay if Labour & Greens don't.
Disagree with the points in all other ways.
I'm paying so other people can enjoy living in a democracy but never make a political contribution?
That is an amazingly Socialist viewpoint given its source...
Lindsay it seems pretty simple to me - if the money was spend illegally then it should be paid back. The minute you bring self interest into it it gets muddy - so it's better to stand aside from your personal situation and ask what is the right thing to do. I have voted ACT for many elections, but I won't support any party that spend taxpayer money illegally or coludes with others to do the same.
And personally, as an ACT donor I wouldn't want my money being handed back to Parliamentary Services while Labour and the Greens sit on theirs.
Hmmm, this is the first time I have seen this inconsistency in your approach.
ACT, the flagship of Personal Responsibility promotions, if found to have been illegally spending tax payers' money, need to pay it back. The context of who else owes how much and their current intentions about paying it back are completely irrelevant.
Illegal is illegal. Pay it back. If it is illegal for Labour, then why on earth would ACT have any position that differs?
And what really bothers me is I suspect if National hadn't had replete coffers, based on past actions, they would'nt now be in a postion to act holier than thou.
Coveting someone else's resources is a pretty ugly stance to take. And irrelevant.
Wrong is wrong is wrong is wrong.
No matter what "they" did, what "they" won't do, or because "they have more money than we do".
I'm with Brian and David - you're stance on this is quite unexpected and apparently inconsistent with what you normally communicate regarding jutice and taking responsibility for your own life and actions.
Labour took money from you and I that wasn't there for that purpose. Pay it back.
ACT took money from you and I that wasn't there for that purpose. Pay it back.
No difference there.
And personally, as an ACT donor I wouldn't want my money being handed back to Parliamentary Services while Labour and the Greens sit on theirs.
Unlike the rest of Government, the person liable for the spend if found outside the rules is the MP - not their party or their members. So Messers Hide, Prebble, Shirley, Franks, Eckhoff, Wang and Mrs Roy, Mrs Newman and Ms Coddington will have to pay the $$$ back.
So, lobby the ACT board to refuse to make payment on their behalf - the old caucus will be the ones who have to stump up with the cash.
Post a Comment