Prime Minister at odds with rule of law

Independent Candidate for Tauranga Gray Eatwell disputes the Prime Minister’s suggestion that it is the public’s responsibility to police a political parties observation of disclosure requirements of Electoral Law, while she makes a mockery of the need for the taxpayer funded office of compliance, the Electoral Commission.

 

“In my experience of more than a decade seeking accountability from such statutory bodies and the observation of the damage caused to an unprotected public when these offices abdicate their duty, I feel exasperated at the lack of governance in the NZ First affair”, Gray Eatwell said today.

 

Highly respected Professor of Law Peter Spiller describes the Electoral Commission as being provided for by the Electoral Act 1993. In professor Spiller’s opinion the supervision of political parties compliance with the Electoral Acts disclosure requirements is the statutory obligation of the Electoral Commission.

 

Under conditions of the Electoral Act, when a registered political party falsifies a disclosure statement, this action is deemed a “corrupt practice”. The penalty for committing such a practice is severe, including loss of seat.

 

“In the case of NZ First, there is clear evidence that nondisclosure of donations has occurred under circumstances that must be investigated”.

 

“This is both a moral and legal matter. It is disgraceful that a party leader would publicly discredit any person who has gifted his party so much in the way Winston Peters has attacked Sir Robert Jones and Mr. Glenn’s integrity.”

 

Sir Robert Jones and Owen Glenn have both been solicited to donate funds explicitly for the benefit of the NZ First party; therefore the party has a clear-cut obligation to declare the donations under the disclosure requirements of the Electoral Act.

 

Winston Peters continued refusal to comply and/or provide evidence of his party finances falls well outside his statutory obligations, which in the opinion of Professor Spiller should be investigated by the Electoral Commission. This contradicts the Prime Ministers view.

 

Notwithstanding the above, any acceptance that a political party may solicit funds to use for purposes other than intended by the donor, would constitute the very serious legal matter of false pretences.