#geddis

New Post has been published on http://www.newsfrombanks.com/geddis-about-banks.html

Geddis about Banks

Andrew Geddis blogs:

I’m conflicted regarding how outraged I ought to be at Banks’ actions. Yes, Banks is guilty of deliberately striving to conceal within the globe the identity of donors to his campaign which (for any reason) he thought may confirm embarrasing down the track. This really is a bad thing for politicians at any level to do. But, Banks’ opponent at the relevant mayoral election was equally busy hiding within the globe the identity of those that funded his campaign … he merely did it more cleverly by using the trust because a conduit. So is the real matter here which Banks only didn’t obey the letter instead of the spirit of the law?

Banks broke the law, plus which is not anything to be minimised. But because Geddis points out the impact of his actions is not any different to what Len Brown did. They both hid donations – only which Brown utilized a trust to avoid disclosure (that was legal) plus Banks didn’t.

Fourth, it’s true which Banks just has to leave Parliament when he gets convicted of the offence he is guilty of (conviction plus guilt are not the same thing). However I truly, absolutely hope he doesn’t receive discharged without conviction – New Zealand has a terrible record of choosing plus punishing electoral offences (the authorities still haven’t actioned a bunch of complaints within the last election campaign!), so to (effectively) allow off an MP for breaching electoral law might reinforce the content which these types of rules absolutely don’t matter. Also, the honourable thing for Banks to do is to resign today … it’s a bad search for Parliament because an organization to have an MP guilty of a offence which could see him tossed out dangling about inside the hope a courtroom can spare him which indignity. By all means Banks must carry about striving to clear his name with appeals as well as the like, nevertheless he won’t be doing the organization any favours when he insists about his proper to stay.

If Banks doesn’t resign, however, is convicted, you then have the problem of what arises is his seat is vacated. Here’s the time-frame.

31 July – last Home sitting day

1 August – sentencing of Banks

3 August – deadline for Registrar to notify the Speaker of conviction

4 August – vacancy announced inside Gazette

14 August – Parliament dissolved

20 August – Writ Day for general election

25 August – deadline for Governor-General to matter writ for a by-election

The media have mentioned which when Banks is convicted about 1 August, then Parliament might should reconvene to determine to not hold the by-election. I’m not certain which will be required, despite the reality it might eliminate question.

S129(4) of the Electoral Act states no by-election is required for a vacancy which happens following Parliament is dissolved or expires. Then the vacancy might happen before the dissolution, yet the writ wouldn’t need to be issued till following the writs for the general election has been issued.

I think electoral officials might utilize discretion to determine a general election writ for Epsom supercedes a by-election writ for Epsom, plus to not hold the by-election eve when Parliament didn’t vote to not have it. The by-election wouldn’t be held before the general election plus will be of no result.

So when Banks refuses to resign (that appears unlikely), plus is convicted about 1 August, it can not be needed for Parliament to reconvene to vote to not have a by-election. If the Government merely delays the writ till following the writ for the general election, I’d state good sense might see prevail. I can’t see a Judge ever ruling which the Electoral Commission should run a by-election following the general election writs have been problem.

Tags: Andrew Geddis, Electoral Act, John Banks