Cover image of Andrew Geddis

Andrew Geddis Podcasts

Read more

9 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Andrew Geddis. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Andrew Geddis, often where they are interviewed.

Read more

9 of The Best Podcast Episodes for Andrew Geddis. A collection of podcasts episodes with or about Andrew Geddis, often where they are interviewed.

Updated daily with the latest episodes

Episode artwork

Andrew Geddis: Law professor Andrew Geddis on the NZ First Foundation investigation

Play
Read more
It'll be at least a year before two people connected to the New Zealand First Foundation go through the courts.
The Serious Fraud Office has charged them with obtaining by deception.
No ministers or MPs from the New Zealand First Party have been charged.
Otago University law Professor Andrew Geddis told Mike Hosking it will be a year at least before there's any trial.
“Jami Lee Ross and others charged in connection with donations to the National Party won't go to court until next year, so we won’t see a trial until at least 2021.”
Geddis says the charges have been brought under the Crimes Act, rather than the Electoral Act.
He says it's a serious offence and the maximum penalty is seven years in prison.
LISTEN ABOVE
Sep 29 2020 · 3mins
Episode artwork

New Zealand First Foundation: Andrew Geddis on SFO charges

Play
Read more
The SFO has charged two people - who have interim name suppression - with obtaining by deception following its probe into electoral funding and investigation of the New Zealand First Foundation.
Those charged are not ministers, sitting MPs, candidates in the election, staffers, or current members of New Zealand First.
Party leader Winston Peters says he and his party have been exonerated by the decision.
Despite this the party had sought an injunction to prevent the SFO from revealing the charges until after the election.
Law professor Andrew Geddis speaks to Corin Dann.
Sep 29 2020 · 5mins
Episode artwork

Professor Andrew Geddis (on General Election postponement and High Court lockdown decision) Interview - Michaela Waite-Harvey - Radio One 91fm

Play
Read more
Professor Andrew Geddis (on General Election postponement and High Court lockdown decision) Interview by Michaela Waite-Harvey on Radio One 91fm Dunedin
Aug 20 2020 ·
Episode artwork

Andrew Geddis: High Court says lockdown unlawful for first nine days

Play
Read more
The Government has no plans to re-write the law despite the High Court ruling that the first nine days of the nationwide Covid lockdown were unlawful, though justified.
New Zealanders were not actually required by law to stay at home in their bubbles until April 3, more than a week into lockdown, today's ruling has found.
"Even as this country returns to a state of semi-lockdown, there is one thing on which most commentators are agreed. The decisions taken by the New Zealand Government in March this year to "go hard and go early" were the right ones," said the High Court decision, released this afternoon.
"Even in times of emergency, however, and even when the merits of the Government response are not widely contested, the rule of law matters."
That was why Wellington lawyer Andrew Borrowdale sought a judicial review of the lockdown decision, asking for declarations of illegality in relation to three aspects of the Government's initial Covid-19 response.
The first focused on public announcements made by Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and other officials during the first nine days of lockdown.
The other two aspects related to orders made under the Health Act 1956 by director general of health Ashley Bloomfield on March 26, April 3 and April 27, and the definition of "essential services". Those two aspects were dismissed by the court.
The first order made at the start of level 4 lockdown was a ban on congregating and the closure of non-essential businesses, but it did not require people to stay home and in their bubbles.
Those obligations were instead conveyed to the public by Ardern and other officials in media briefings from March 23 onwards. Borrowdale argued these further restrictions were not "prescribed by law" and therefore unlawfully limited some of the public's rights and freedoms under the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act
The court has agreed the statements conveyed New Zealanders were required - under threat of police enforcement - to stay at home in their bubbles, despite the fact it was not legally supported at the time.
Until Order Two came into effect on April 3, those restrictions were an unlawful limit on Kiwis' rights and freedoms.
The court did not find any laws were "suspended", and said the power to impose the restrictions existed but was simply not used until April 3.
The court recognised the state of emergency went some way to explaining what had happened, and declared the requirement was still a necessary, reasonable and proportionate response to the Covid-19 crisis at the time.
In an affidavit to the court, Bloomfield described the approaching wave of the pandemic, and said there was "only one shot" at stamping out the virus.
"We realised that 'go early' had changed to 'go right now', and there was no time left. What we thought could be done in two weeks or two days had to happen now: it was quite literally now or never," he said.
"The absolute priority was to get the lockdown in place and that drove every aspect of what we did over that period: we needed to move, and had no time to sort out the exact details. Some things would have to get sorted out later."
In the court decision, justices Susan Thomas, Geoffrey Venning and Rebecca Ellis concluded the effect of the statements from Ardern and other officials caused New Zealanders to believe they were required by law to stay home and in their bubbles when - for the first nine days - it was not the case.
They made a formal declaration that the statements made in the initial part of lockdown were not lawful, and therefore limited the rights of New Zealanders.
It's believed there will be few, if any, prosecutions affected by today's findings.
The other challenges
Bloomfield's first three orders under section 70 (1) of the Health Act 1956 forbade congregations, except for those with social distancing, required the closure of non-essential businesses, and required all people to be isolated or quarantined at home.
Borrowdale argued the orders went beyond th...
Aug 19 2020 · 3mins
Episode artwork

Andrew Geddis - The origins of the Māori seats

Play
Read more
"The future of the Māori seats matters a lot for our country, Pākehā and Māori alike. But if we are going to debate that future, we need to do so with a clear understanding of how Māori really view these seats and what else Māori might want from political representation." - thespinoff.co.nz

Professor Andrew Geddis outlines the history of the Māori seats alongside the various arguments for and against their inclusion in our electoral system.

Co hosted by Seonaid Lewis on behalf of Auckland Libraries and Michelle Patient who appears courtesy of Ancestry ProGenealogists.

Originally presented as a webinar and recorded on June 22 2020.
Aug 03 2020 · 50mins
Episode artwork

Andrew Geddis: Judicial review into legality of lockdown wraps up

Play
Read more
A decision in the High Court case against the Director-General of Health over the legality of the Covid-19 lockdown has been reserved.
Law drafter Andrew Borrowdale claims Ashley Bloomfield went beyond his powers, and it was unlawful to put the country into lockdown.
Otago University law professor, Andrew Geddis, told Mike Hosking if the case is successful, the defence is likely to ask that a formal declaration is not given.
He says a lot of commercial issues could arise.
"People who had rents put on hold or who weren't able to build businesses and their contracts were affected, because of what was seen as the law, if that wasn't the law, that could mess it all up."
LISTEN ABOVE
Jul 29 2020 · 5mins
Episode artwork

Stuart Nash and Andrew Geddis on Serious Fraud Office investigating Labour Party donations

Play
Read more
The Serious Fraud Office has commenced an investigation over donations made to the Labour Party in 2017.
However, it is remaining tight-lipped over its details.
Labour Party president Claire Szabo told the Herald in a statement: "We have not been advised of the specifics of the inquiry, however the Labour Party will fully cooperate with any SFO investigations."
"We will not be issuing any further statement while the investigation is underway."
In February, however, Szabo confirmed two men - brothers and businessmen Shijia (Colin) Zheng and Hengjia (Joe) Zheng - who were then being investigated by the SFO and had made donations to the National Party, had also made donations to Labour.
Hengjia Zheng's $10,000 donation came through buying a piece of art at a silent auction in 2017, while Shijia Zheng donated $1940 in 2018.
Szabo has said the donations were appropriately filed in accordance with the rules.
The Zheng brothers have since been criminally charged by the SFO, alongside independent MP Jami-Lee Ross and New Zealand Order of Merit recipient Yikun Zhang over allegations relating to National Party donations.
The minister responsible for the SFO, Stuart Nash, told Heather Du Plessis-Allan on Newstalk ZB this evening he was blindsided by the agency's announcement.
"I read about it in the media and thought 'goodness me'. I had no indication whatsoever that anyone was looking to investigate us, so I don't know who has lodged a complaint with us but, you know, time will tell.
"It would be inappropriate for me to comment any further, if in fact I could, but I can't."

Labour Party president Claire Szabo said she has not been advised of the specifics of the SFO's inquiry. Photo / Mark Mitchell
The Labour Party investigation, the SFO said in a statement this afternoon, was also not an indication of guilt.
"In order to commence an investigation, the Serious Fraud Office Act requires that the director [of the SFO] must have reasonable grounds to believe that a relevant offence may have been committed. The director does not have to be satisfied that an offence has been committed," it said.
However, the SFO would not comment further on the investigation.
The SFO did reiterate it is presently conducting four investigations over electoral funding allegations, which include a probe into the New Zealand First Foundation and two separate investigations into the Auckland and Christchurch mayors' expenses.
"We consider that making the current announcement is consistent with our past practice in this area of electoral investigations and in the public interest," SFO director Julie Read said.
In the interests of transparency and consistency, the SFO announced the commencement of all these investigations, she added.
Electoral law expert Andrew Geddis, from at the University of Otago, told Newstalk ZB this evening the Labour Party has a history of using auctions to drum up money.
The potential problem, he said, was the payment chain.
"You have got someone who gives an item, which is worth some money, and then you have got someone who at auction bids on it and buys it for another sum of money.
"And the question then is: Who is making a donation to the party at what point?"
Geddis said it was possible the Labour Party has been using this to be "a bit squiffy" about who the money, or where value, was coming from.
Even if there is no illegality, Geddis said, the way in which auctions are used by political parties has become problematic.
"There is so much wiggle room that the parties have used it to give the information they want to give.
"Frankly, I don't care if a local artist gives their painting to the Labour Party, that's fine... what I want to know is if some very wealthy person has paid $80,000 for that painting and that money is then going to the Labour Party to run their campaign.
"As it happens, that sort of information doesn't appear to have actually made it through to the Electoral Commission for the public to see."
Geddis added the...
Jul 14 2020 · 12mins
Episode artwork

Andrew Geddis: Legal groups joins judicial review into police's lockdown powers

Play
Read more
A judicial review that will consider the legality of the level 3 and 4 lockdowns has been given significant legal grunt.
The New Zealand Law Society, the Criminal Bar Association and the Auckland District Law Council are joining forces with Wellington lawyer Andrew Borrowdale, who is mounting the case.
Questions have been raised as to whether director-general of health Ashley Bloomfield had the legal authority under the Public Health Act to effectively shut the country down and to order people to stay at home unless they had good reason for being out.
Crown Law advice - leaked during the lockdown to Newstalk ZB - suggested Bloomfield did not have the required authority, which would throw into question all the arrests made during it.
The same advice was used by the former Deputy Police Commissioner Mike Clement to warn his district commanders about the thin ice they were on when it came to making orders in the name of Covid-19.
Attorney General David Parker has insisted the leaked Crown Law advice was a draft copy, even though it had the same serial number as the advice used by Clement to warn his officers.
Borrowdale, a former legal draftsman at Parliament, is seeking a judicial review of the lockdown handling. The case is scheduled to be heard in the High Court at Wellington next month and it's understood in a relatively rare move there will be a full bench of judges hearing the matter.
The court last week heard from the Auckland District Law Council and the Criminal Bar Association, which wanted to become involved in the case.
A judge also wanted to give the Law Society the opportunity to become involved and gave them until today to declare its intention, which the society has now done.
It's expected the intervention will give specialist grunt to the case being mounted by Borrowdale.
Law professor Andrew Geddis said the case "is very much a serious one in terms of raising issues that the legal world think are both genuinely uncertain and important."
Geddis says Borrowdale was raising concerns in a proper fashion, unlike another private case taken by two men which failed, after they appealed the High Court finding.
President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Stephen Kos, said at the time that extraordinarily complex questions needed answers. He referred to an article academics Geddis and Claudia Geiringer wrote and a report of Parliament's regulations review committee looking at government powers in emergencies, which he said was "hardly approving".
Geddis said the intervention of the three legal bodies showed they were keen on the legality being properly tested in court.
He said if the judicial review finds the lockdown rules were legally invalid it would have implications for anyone charged with breaching the rules.
- text by Barry Soper
Jun 10 2020 · 2mins
Episode artwork

IPL: Professor Andrew Geddis

Play
Read more
Professor Andrew Geddis, Faculty of Law, presents his Inaugural Professorial Lecture on the topic “Of Flags and Protest: Dissent, Offence and the Limits of Free Speech”.13 September 2011.
Jun 28 2012 · 49mins