Written By: - Date published: 10:22 am, July 22nd, 2008 - 96 comments
Categories: election funding, nz first -
Tags:
For my part, I don’t see the big deal in all this Peters donation stuff. Transparency in election funding is important (and it’s something that National and ACT have constantly opposed) but there is no evidence of Peters has been purposely secretive.
A legal defence fund set up for a court case involving Peters received a donation from Owen Glenn and, as per his strict practice, the lawyer, Brian Henry, involved did not reveal to Peters that Glenn was one of the donors to that fund. I see nothing wrong with that practice on Henry’s part it seems designed to ensure politicians do not feel beholden to anyone who donates to their cause and to discourage donations in return for political favours. That’s all perfectly legal and, seeing as Glenn was happy to give openly to Labour it can be assumed that it was only Henry’s practice and Peters’ ignorance that kept Glenn from publicly declaring his donation to the legal defence fund.
The irony is that we are only aware that Glenn was a large donor at all because he gave openly and honestly to Labour. In contrast, National received over $2 million in secret donations that it purposely funnelled through anonymising trusts. We won’t see the media asking hard questions about who gave National all that money and why National was so desperate to keep the identities secret because they’ve been so thoroughly secretive that there is no evidence to work with.
Peters claims he didn’t know about the donation to the fund until Henry decided to break his practice on Friday, and I see no reason not to believe him. When Peters did find out he told the media quickly.
Peters did know a legal defence fund used to fund a case in his name had received donations but legal defence funds are specifically not included in the list of pecuniary interests, so there was no need to list it. The registry of pecuniary interests is a joke anyway nearly every National and ACT MP hides their true financial interests by having family trusts, the holdings of which are not declared.
As for the Dompost’s ‘revelations’ today various members of the Vela family and companies owned by the family gave amounts that may have totalled $150,000 to New Zealand First over a period of five years. So what? The donations are legal and, as long as NZF didn’t receive more $10,000 from any individual person (legal or natural) in one financial year, they didn’t have to be declared under the law of the time.
It’s an indictment on the New Zealand political discourse that, when there finally is a real policy contest to discuss, the dominant issue is a donation Owen Glenn gave three years ago. So much easier and fun to chase Peters than research big issues that actually affect people. So, excuse me if I continue to post on policy and issues that matter to Kiwis, rather than getting worked up about who knew what when over some old donations.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
So Winnie is in the Pooh. It looks like old ways die hard for some former National MPs. This Vela family thing makes me far more concerned than the Owen Glen donations. Thanks Nick C for pointing out that Duncan Garner has a blog I wonder if it will be as much a waste of time as his political commentry on the evening news.
[lprent: you have been previously banned.
Whoever is letting him through the spam filter, please desist.]
Lynn
“Any party who gets anon donations should be regarded as being dirty until proven otherwise in my opinion. I don’t believe that a chinese wall solution works. It sure didn’t with Winston’s legal fund.
But the relative dirtiness should be in scale with the donations.”
So Labour and National are the only parties in NZ that should be regarded as dirty according to the 2007 returns ?
Labour 230k of anon returns vs Nationals 533k.
[lprent: you have been previously banned.
Whoever is letting him through the spam filter, please desist.]
Walk it backwards to oh say 1994. Taking a single point on any graph is just asking for a lousy diagnosis.
With all of the graphs around here we must have one dealing with anon donations to parties. I could look it up but I’m trying to debug some missing messages (and getting withdrawal symptoms)
The Vela donations are interesting for two reasons:
1) They show a deliberate skirting of the electoral finance rules at the time (multiple separated donations barely below the anon threshhold). People who are currently wailing and gnashing their teeth about these donations but campaigned against the EFA are showing some pretty blatant hypocrisy.
2) The fact that a major family within the racing lobby was skirting the law to fund NZF at the same time the racing lobby was either skirting or breaching campaigning rules to support National (Party Vote National Stakes anyone?) is equally illustrative of deeply dubious practices.
Helen Clark really seems to be enjoying herself this afternoon in the house
Her schoolmarmish put down of Judith Collins was embarrassing. But she is weathering well the vicious assault john key has brutally delivered with his damp limp bus ticket. The individual eulogies that all the Winston first members gave their leader was touching.
The only good thing about watching Cullen speak is the view of Louisa Wall behind him. I am not sure whether Louisa Wall looks hot because I know she is a lesbian or because she is just hot..
bb your last sentence really says all we need to know about you.
And Collins got exactly what she deserved.
Annette king just delivered the most direct and lucid answer I have ever seen her make when responding to Simon Power’s supplementary on why Baker was not wearing a waist restraint when he stabbed a screw last week.
Aj. I meant it was embarrassing for Collins… And excuse me for being a healthy male!
Pretty fair assessment from B-Bill, on the Big Showdown. Key had a hand full of trump cards to play, and wasted them. Clark was hardly troubled. The NZ First MPs’ tribute questions were irrelevant but they did enough to make Peters seem like an innocent victim. Only Hide seemed interested in going in for the kill, National were hopeless.
David Parker had just announced that he is in an open relationship with Jeanette Fitzsimmons!!!!!!!!!
The dangers of blogging with one ear on the telly.
T-Rex:
Nicely put. Indeed it isn’t. And congratulations on yours.
SP:
You’re (deliberately?) mistaking a few bloggers for the majority of the Bill’s opponents. That’s called… what was it Lynn was saying above? Ah yes… “stifl[ing] debate by proporting to show ‘facts’ when it merely shows a ‘hidden’ opinion”.
I oppose the EFA. I oppose this cover-up. Yet I don’t want any party to receive anonymous money and I’d argue that the vast bulk of people who opposed the EFA (myself included) did so a) precisely because it was ineffective in stopping the influence of anonymous donations on politics and b) it was therefore clearly intended as a political weapon aimed unfairly at Labour’s opponents.
I can only assume you’re characterising the HRC (yadda yadda… I can’t be bothered listing all the organisations, many of the “lefties”, who warned the government this law was crap) are National supporters in favour of vast anonymous donations so as to “stifle debate” then.
A simple Bill saying, as you’ve suggested, that all donations of more than $200 to any party, politician, or entity connected with the foregoing need to be declared would have met with the approval of most EFA opponents I suspect.
And on this you take the word of none other than… Winston. Remind me to demand you’re on the jury if I’m ever on trial, Steve. A denial seemingly equates to innocence.. or is that just for FOL’s (Friends of Labour’s)?
Your desperation to ensure none of this sticks to Labour risks making you look like a dupe as more information comes out (and trust me, it will…)
For the record the truth about Winston’s knowledge of – and role in – donations made to Henry’s trust should come out soon now certain sections of the media have spoken to me and other people. But I won’t relate the evidence here as I don’t want The Standard hit with a writ… though it’s tempting, as the “Winston can do no wrong” chorus might start to sing a different tune.
That Clark and Key aren’t elbowing one another aside to be first to the microphones to state that, no matter what the outcome of the election, their party won’t entertain the idea of any relationship with NZF, says everything about morality in NZ politics. The irony is, the level of disillusionment and disgust with politics and politicians is such that any leader taking such a principled stance would probably gain enough votes that being propped up by NZF wouldn’t be an issue.
But principles also require guts, and clearly they too are sorely lacking.
I dropped down to one rollie per day instead of the usual 10-15 camels/day over a couple of months. But killing that last one – well it interfered too much with programming.. My main urge to a ciggie usually happens when I have a nasty bug to kill. So I relax down by coming on here and well……………
The patches from Quitline seem to work quite well. I’m on the lowest dose each day and planning on dropping to every other day next week.
But typical market. I went around 3 pharmacies and couldn’t find anyone who could tell me which type of patch to use and who had the patches. Rang up quitline, got good advice, and dockets a few days later to get a prescription. Classic case of a central system working well. Try them next time…..
I tried the patches. They were a bugger to light.
Smoking is the last vice left in my life. I am not ready yet.
The doc has me on about 30 pills a day at the moment for various ailments. I am not going to add another drug to the list just yet.
Rex: The only real issue I see in all of this is the issue of transparency on political donations. But that is a whole lot bigger than Winston’s legal fund.
However (as BB says) it will probably not get solved (despite my wishes) until the dog-whistling (aka DPF and friends) over public funding of the political process stops and we have a decent debate on the topic. Ultimately there is no such thing as free lunch, regardless of what the NZ public would sometimes like to believe. You either have transparency and probably more public funding of political parties, OR you take risks of corruption in the political institutions.
It is a question of balance because I think that the level of donations will reduce markedly when it becomes fully transparent. I think that there will be a major shortfall in funding in all political parties. There simply aren’t that many people actually interested in politics in NZ.
In the meantime, the really critical fix to the electoral law went through – a recognition of the true length of MMP election campaigns. I was getting really tired of having 6 to 9 month campaigns when all of the bloody law was related to 3 months. It was massively stupid. Instead of campaigning for marginal electorates, we’re campaigning across the whole country. Takes longer and requires more time – so the campaigns have been lengthening.
If Winston lied to Helen and she finds out. Well that mistake tends to carry its own penalty based on past experience.
BB: Damn I thought that they were a rectal implant – I’ll try it your way…
Havent read anything above but Peters really gets my blood boiling. Just two examples;
1. Found to have illegally used taxpayer funds for other purposes (electioneering). Rather than pay it back he gives it to charity. All the jokes people made about doing the same with their taxes were not actually said in jest. It is a f$#&**g crock that he could do that. We, you know the taxpayer, the grinder of the cogs, could never do that.
2. Claims that money paid to cover his legal bills is not for his benefit etc. Try that one with the IRD and see yourself get ripped to shreds by the most powerful dept in the govt. Again, we, you know the taxpayer, the grinder of the cogs, cold never do that.
Winston has created himself many serious enemies with his recent conduct. This current one will hopefully see the end of him forever.
Vanilla Ellis:dave: please tell me where Winston sits in cabinet, if you can?
Because, as far as I was aware, Winston isn’t a member of Cabinet – unless of course you know something I don’t?Stop using the Cabinet Manual as your truncheon
What a stupid thing to say. What relevance is your comment? Anybody would think from your comment that the Cabinet Manual is merely a directive to Cabinet Ministers. It’s not. and Vanilla Ellis doesn’t even know that about NZ politics.
T-Rex. At the time of Glenn’s contribution to the legal defence fund there was no controversy over him. Labour was quite happy to have him openly donate to them. The beat up only came this year, the donation was in 2005.
Sorry – unclear – I meant Peters denial of the contribution a few months ago: the ‘NO’ placard.
I’m not saying Peters should have refused the donation at the time at all, simply that he shouldn’t have lied about it. Again. And again. And again.
Good lord dave, you’ve unearthed me – I’m not actually Geoffrey Palmer posting under a pseudonym, and I did read ‘Cabinet Manual’ lexically.
You did say this, which confused me perhaps:
What makes Peters so special here? Are all supporting members or their lawyers required to make such disclosures to the Prime Minister? (say, would Ron Mark have to disclose similar donations to his lawyer?)
I’m here to learn…
Captcha: Correction 80 (Good lord, was I asleep for the other 79?)
Lynn, aside from your downplaying of the importance of Winston’s apparent deceit I agree with what you’ve said.
There are certainly those who’d like the taxpayer to fund political parties (Gee, part of me does… it’d be like government departments, all looking for consultants on whom to spend their money within the allotted period lest they get given less next time!). But I can’t see if flying in NZ – they’d have more chance convincing people to subsidise used car salesmen. Actually that’s not fair to used car salesman… it’d be as popular as asking people to fund night vision goggles for peeping toms.
But that doesn’t mean the parties have to turn to anonymous donations – they might be forced to re-think their campaigning, and that’d be a good thing. The largest expense in a campaign is the use of “old” media – everything from TV ads to corflute signs (I regularly challenge people to find me a single voter who’ll attest to a Damascean conversion upon coming in sight of a corflute sign) to suits who tell them what to say in the ads and print on the signs.
A drying-up of funds might force a re-think of their campaigning and in particular a move toward proper web-based campaigning – not a glossy site with four smirking (or two Photoshopped) pics of “the leader” but something that had real interaction and encouraged accountability.
I could point to a few unimportant campaigns I’ve won for peanuts using such cheap but highly democratic ‘guerilla’ tactics but there are far bigger and more impressive examples, from Jesse Ventura to Howard Dean.
(And people like you and I who know a bit about politics and this interweb thingy might still get rich quick
)
Rex:
I code for export so I don’t have to put up with corporates of any kind.
I can’t really be bothered getting rich. If I’d have wanted to do so then I’d have done it a while ago. Seemed like quite a pointless activity to me – what was that phrase? “Whoever has the most toys at the end wins” pretty well sums up the futility of that approach. Besides it would interfere with playing around with ideas and things.
I do all of my various non-work activities on a voluntary basis. That gives me more leverage to concentrate on the things I think are important. In politics that is the next election, not the upcoming one. My main focus at present is pretty much on 2011, not 2008. That is why I’m interested in some of this web stuff now. I’m just ssurprised at how useful it has been this time around.
But as you’re probably aware, political parties are very slow movers.
“My main focus at present is pretty much on 2011, not 2008.”
Given up them game already Lynn?
[lprent: Nope - at this point I think that the outcome is going to be too close to call. Mostly because the Nat's seem to have problems playing with anyone. You can understand the increasingly frenetic calls from mid-right to dump MMP. It doesn't favour people who can't cooperate.
I work on the infrastructure levels, not the usual tabloid political level. I usually work on things 3-4 years before I think they are really required.]