Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | Video | Questions Of the Day | Search

 


National asks cops to explain on pledge card probe

Don Brash MP
National Party Leader
4 October 2006

National asks police to explain on pledge card probe

National Leader Don Brash has sought an explanation from the police about the glaring inadequacies in their inquiry into the Labour Party’s spending on its pledge card and brochure.

Dr Brash has written to Police Commissioner Howard Broad outlining a list of concerns about the investigation.

“After looking at the documents on the investigation, National cannot understand how the police failed to prosecute the Labour Party - because Labour clearly breached the spending cap of $2.38 million by $418,000.

“Labour ‘strategist’ Pete Hodgson admitted at the weekend that the spending was ‘of course’ electioneering, and Labour’s own auditors accepted that if the pledge card was election spending, then Labour breached the cap.

“For reasons which totally escape us, the police failed to lay charges over Labour’s pledge card overspending.

“Having carefully considered the material obtained about the investigation, it is my view that questions remain of such seriousness that they challenge National’s ability to retain confidence in the police.

“The police failed to reach the standards of excellence required of them in deciding not to charge anyone from Labour.

“My letter details specific areas of concern relating to the police’s failure to understand the Electoral Act, the police’s failure to take Crown Law advice, the police’s failure to prosecute Labour when there was such a clear breach, and the police’s failure to deal adequately with the concerns of former Chief Electoral Officer David Henry.

“While I’m aware that the time limit for prosecution under the Act has now well passed, I‘m releasing this letter to show how seriously National views police conduct of this inquiry.

“We await Commissioner Broad’s explanation with intense interest.”

--

Attached: Letter to Police Commissioner Howard Broad

2 October 2006


Commissioner Howard Broad
Commissioner of Police
Police National Headquarters
PO Box 3017
Wellington


Dear Commissioner

I am writing to you to seek your explanation of Police conduct in relation to the investigation into the New Zealand Labour Party regarding offences under S214B of the Electoral Act.

Having considered the material now available to us, it is our view that questions remain of such seriousness that they challenge the ability of the New Zealand National Party, the official Parliamentary Opposition, to retain confidence in the New Zealand Police. Because these matters are in the public domain, and raise questions of serious public interest, it is my intention to release this letter to the news media, and to invite your public response.

On 17 March 2006, Acting Assistant Commissioner Roger Carson reported, among other matters, that he had decided not to prosecute the New Zealand Labour Party under S214B of the Electoral Act. Since that time my office has obtained and examined:

- The Police files, under the Official Information Act.
- Correspondence and a file note of a meeting between the Police and the former Chief Electoral Officer.
- A copy of a draft report of the Controller and Auditor-General into the spending of parliamentary allocations for parties and members on advertising during the election period.
- A legal opinion from the Solicitor-General dated 19 April 2006 on the question of what is an election expense.

An examination of these documents causes me to have the most serious concerns about the actions of the Police. For this reason I feel compelled to write to you to seek an explanation before determining the steps that I should properly take in the circumstances. It is my intention to briefly detail these concerns for your response.


First, may I say that I write this letter with great reluctance. The National Party collectively, and I personally, strongly support the rule of law and the role of the Police in our society. Public respect for the Police is one of the essential pillars of our society. However, that respect must be earned. In relation to the matters I shall now outline, the actions of the Police appear to fall short of the standard that is required to maintain public confidence.

1. A Failure to Understand the Law

The most serious allegation against the Labour Party to be investigated by Police was the allegation that the party had breached S214B of the Electoral Act. Breaches of this section are described as corrupt practices or illegal practices (depending upon whether the breach was committed knowingly) and carry a range of very serious penalties. Fundamental to my concerns is the fact that the Police did not appear to understand the meaning of this section, failed to seek advice from anyone who did, and therefore failed to give even the most rudimentary consideration as to whether offences had been committed.

My office obtained many documents from the Police on this investigation, including the report of Bill Peoples, Acting National Manager of the National Bureau of Investigation Support, and the Memorandum to the National Manager, Crime Services, from Detective Inspector Harry Quinn.

Inspector Peoples’ report dealt very briefly with the S214B complaint against the Labour Party. It seemed to indicate that because Mike Smith, the Secretary of the Labour Party, had not paid for the expenses in question then no offence had been committed.

Whether or not the material in question was an election expense, there is almost nothing in the hundreds of pages released to us to indicate what investigations had taken place into the S214B breach. While all the other complaints appeared to have many pages of information relating to them contained in the file, there was almost nothing on the S214B issue.

Inspector Quinn’s memorandum was even more concerning. In it he asserts that the law on this issue is unclear (it is not unclear), that parliamentary rules on spending are not clear (they are clear, and are not even relevant to an examination of whether or not the Electoral Act 1993 was breached), and that since the Labour Party did not believe they had breached the Electoral Act there was no “wilful contravention” of the law, and therefore no offence.

Inspector Quinn then asserts that outside the lead-up to an election, political parties’ promotional materials are all paid for by the taxpayer, and that “during an election campaign additional campaign funding is provided to political parties but it is strictly limited”. With all due respect to Inspector Quinn, this statement suggests a serious misunderstanding on his part of both electoral law and the funding of political parties in New Zealand.

It is also concerning that Inspector Quinn seemed to be suggesting that because, in his opinion, there was no guarantee of a conviction, and given that a negative result for the Labour Party would impact on the integrity of the 2005 election, he felt to proceed with a prosecution would be “reckless”. This suggests the Police were unwilling to proceed with a prosecution that would potentially damage the Labour Government.

2. The Failure to take Crown Law Advice

This inability to grasp the simple meaning of S214B of the Electoral Act is almost unfathomable to me in light of the Crown Law advice now made available by the Auditor-General. That advice, dated 19 April 2006, makes very clear what must be regarded as an “election expense” within the meaning of the Electoral Act, and what is acceptable as a “Parliamentary expense” according to the rules of the Parliamentary Service Commission. The Crown Law opinion leaves no room for doubt: the Labour Party pledge card was clearly an election expense.

For the final Crown Law opinion to have been available to the Auditor-General on 19 April, it is obvious that the Crown Law view of the law in this area, based upon well-established case law, must have been well settled in the previous weeks during which Police were finalising the investigation of the pledge card. Indeed, the certainty with which the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr David Henry, was able to assert the clarity of the law under S214B in late August and early September 2005 suggests that Crown Law may well have provided advice on this matter as early as that time.

Acting Assistant Commissioner Carson, in some of the released documentation, refers to the need for an “early review” by Crown Law. He further, in a subsequent press release, states that “Crown Law’s involvement in this case has been and continues to be to provide legal advice”.

I find it incomprehensible, given the clarity of Crown Law advice to other agencies in respect of this very same section of the Electoral Act (S214B), that Police could have sought and followed Crown Law advice in deciding not to prosecute the Labour Party under this section. I want to know, and I believe the public have a right to know, what advice was sought from Crown Law, when such advice was sought, and why the clear statement of the law set out in Crown Law’s advice to the Auditor-General was not applied to the New Zealand Labour Party.

3. The Failure to Prosecute the Labour Party

It is clear from the Crown Law opinion of 19 April that the expenditure of the NZ Labour Party on the pledge card was an election expense within the meaning of the Electoral Act. Accordingly, the Labour Party was required to include the cost of the pledge card in its return of election expenses. Such inclusion would clearly have seen the returned expenditure exceed the allowable cap. Under S214B this gives rise to a corrupt practice where the breach has been committed knowingly, and an illegal practice where the offence has been inadvertent.

There is, under S214B, no room for doubt or argument. If an expense is an election expense then it must be counted as such. A simple process of arithmetic determines whether the prescribed cap has been breached. I ask you to explain how, in such circumstances, it was possible for the Police to arrive at any conclusion other than that the Labour Party was in breach of this section.

4. Police Assertions Challenged by Mr Henry

The fuzziness in the Police logic behind their decision was even reflected in Acting Assistant Commissioner Carson’s public statements at the time of the announcement of the decision not to prosecute. In the Weekend Herald of 18 March 2006, Mr Carson reportedly stated that “a lot of the problems evolved from a misunderstanding of the electoral rules”. These statements were read with interest by the then Chief Electoral Officer, Mr David Henry.

Mr Henry sought a meeting with Mr Carson, and my office obtained a file note of this meeting from the Chief Electoral Office. In the meeting, Mr Henry made it clear that in fact the law was clear; that for the purposes of the relevant provisions of the Electoral Act it was irrelevant that Parliamentary Services had paid for the Labour Party material, and that he had sought a Crown Law opinion on this before referring complaints to the Police. Mr Carson then agreed that, in fact, the law was clear, but that there was confusion amongst political parties about the rules for using the leader’s fund for advertising.

This brief exchange between the Acting Assistant Commissioner and the Chief Electoral Officer is truly telling. The Chief Electoral Officer, Mr Henry, as we now know, had warned the Labour Party verbally on 30 August 2005 and in writing on 2 September, that the pledge card was an election expense that must therefore be returned as such. Mr Smith, on behalf of the Labour Party, gave an assurance, subsequently recanted, that this would be done.

It is apparent that Mr Henry then sought Crown Law advice before referring the matter to the Police. The fact that Mr Henry felt compelled, in light of Assistant Commissioner Carson’s remarks when announcing that no prosecution would occur, to seek a meeting to correct Mr Carson’s statements is somewhat revealing.

Mr Henry, as the senior public servant presiding over the conduct of the election, appears to have behaved with total professionalism. Having taken all of the steps available to him to warn the Labour Party against breaching S214B, then taking further legal advice after he was ignored by them, Mr Henry took the only remaining step available: he referred what must have appeared an open-and-shut case to the Police for prosecution. He was entitled, as all New Zealanders were entitled, to look to the Police to process that case in a competent, professional and impartial manner. I now call upon you to explain why Police failed to take appropriate steps to pursue Mr Henry’s referral.

5. Restoring Public Confidence

I am aware that the time limits imposed on prosecution under the relevant sections of the Electoral Act are well past. On the facts now available to me, I have to say that it is my honest belief, subject to any explanations you may be able to provide, that the New Zealand Police have failed to reach the standards of excellence that New Zealanders would expect in deciding not to press charges against the New Zealand Labour Party. Because of the statutory time limits, that damage is done. However, the debate over the related matter of use of taxpayer funding for the pledge card continues. That should serve as some indication as to the seriousness with which we, and the New Zealand public, see these matters.

As I have observed, it is now too late to rectify the specific shortcomings that I have identified. It is not too late to minimise the impact of this saga on public confidence and parliamentary confidence in the Police. I therefore invite your full response to the matters I have raised.

Yours sincerely

Don Brash
Leader of the National Party

© Scoop Media

 
 
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

Parliament Today: State Opening Of Parliament

The House sits at 10.30am today before MPs are summoned to hear the Speech from the Throne in the Legislative Council Chamber.

The speech delivered by the Governor-General on the Government’s behalf outlines its priorities for this Parliament.

After this MPs will return to the House for the presentation of petitions and papers and the introduction of any bills.

The Government has five notices of motion on the Order Paper which can be debated. These relate to relating to the appointment of the Deputy Speaker, Assistant Speakers, the reinstatement of business in a carryover motion and one on “Entities to be deemed public organisations”. More>>

 

Tertiary Education: Students Doing It Tough As Fees Rise Again

The Government is making it increasingly difficult for Kiwis to gain tertiary education as fees continue to rise and access to student support becomes even more restricted, Labour’s Tertiary Education spokesperson Chris Hipkins says. More>>

ALSO:

Housing, Iraq: PM Press Conference – 20 October 2014

Prime Minister John Key met with press today to discuss:
• Housing prices and redevelopment in Auckland
• Discussions with Tony Abbott on the governmental response to ISIS, and New Zealand’s election to the UN Security Council More>>

ALSO:

Labour: Review Team Named, Leadership Campaign Starts

Labour’s New Zealand Council has appointed Bryan Gould as Convenor of its post-General Election Review. He will be joined on the Review Team by Hon Margaret Wilson, Stacey Morrison and Brian Corban.

ALSO:


Roy Morgan Poll: National Slips, Labour Hits Lows

The first New Zealand Roy Morgan Poll since the NZ Election shows National 43.5% (down 3.54% since the September 20 Election). This isn’t unusual, National support has dropped after each of John Key’s Election victories... However, support for the main opposition Labour Party has crashed to 22.5% (down 2.63% and the lowest support for Labour since the 1914 NZ Election as United Labour). More>>

ALSO:

In On First Round: New Zealand Wins Security Council Seat

Prime Minister John Key has welcomed New Zealand securing a place on the United Nations Security Council for the 2015-16 term. More>>

ALSO:

TPP Leak: Intellectual Property Text Confirms Risk - Jane Kelsey

The US is continuing its assault on generic medicines through numerous proposed changes to patent laws. ‘These are bound to impact on Pharmac if they are accepted’, according to Professor Kelsey... Copyright is another area of ongoing sensitivity... More>>

ALSO:

RMA: Smith Plans Reform To Ease Urban Development

Newly appointed Environment Minister Nick Smith has announced Resource Management Act reform to foster urban development, where high land prices and expensive resource consents are blocking efforts to provide affordable housing. More>>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On New Zealand getting involved (again) in other people's wars

Apparently, the Key government is still pondering how New Zealand will contribute to the fight against Islamic State. Long may it ponder, given the lack of consensus among our allies as to how to fight IS, where to fight it (Syria, Iraq, or both?) and with whose ground troops, pray tell? More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On child poverty, and David Shearer’s latest outburst

The politicisation of (a) the public service and (b) the operations of the Official Information Act have been highlighted by the policy advice package on child poverty that RNZ’s resolute political editor Brent Edwards has finally prised out of the Ministry of Social Development. More>>

ALSO:

Gordon Campbell: On the government’s review of security laws

So the Key government is about to launch a four week review of the ability of our existing legislation to deal with “suspected and returning foreign terrorist fighters, and other violent extremists.”

According to its terms of reference, the review will consider whether the SIS, GCSB and Police are sufficiently able right now to (a) investigate and monitor suspected and returning foreign terrorist fighters… More>>

ALSO:

Get More From Scoop

 

LATEST HEADLINES

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Parliament
Search Scoop  
 
 
Powered by Vodafone
NZ independent news