Written By: - Date published: 5:49 pm, August 29th, 2008 - 145 comments
Categories: election 2008, election funding, helen clark, nz first -
Tags:
Peters has stood down. Clark has taken over his portfolios.
It’s good that Peters appears to have accepted that this is a necessity and hasn’t turned on the Government. Clever of Clark to take the portfolios herself too.
[we nearly had the scoop on this too but it took too long for me to get an internet connection, damn Herald got in ten minutes earlier]
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Burt, I don’t know much how the SFO operates, but I expect if they take the very serious decision to use their statutory powers, then they would do much more than just one interview with the subject’s legal representative. I note that both Winston said he would put the story straight, and Peter Williams QC said Winston would be exonerated this afternoon. That strikes me to be simply fairy-land stuff.
No doubt others involved in the Spencer Trust, such as Wayne Peters, will need to be interviewed. Roger McClay, who supposedly solicited several of the donations to the Spencer Trust, will need to be interviewed. So too would Ross Meurant, Doug Woollerton, Dail Jones, the respective Treasurers of NZ First, among others. Not to mention the donors themselves: Bob Jones, the Vela brothers, and anyone else they find along the way. I wouldn’t be surprised if Brian Henry himself is interviewed, which might explain why he wasn’t representing Winston at the SFO.
It really does astonish me how these supposed lawyers can look journalists in the eye and say that the SFO will close its investigations the same day they opened them.
Tim
Yes it’s funny isn’t it. They make absurd claims like that which they can never deliver on then claim they are fit to run the country.
burt
In answer to your question.
Yes WPs is virtually bursting at the seams.
Sod
“I loath Winston but after this I could almost be convinced to vote for him.”
Report to Billy for a tasering – you know that you deserve it.
Sod wouldn’t mind a few volts up the backdoor, Howard doesn’t mind as he is Broad minded. Report to Ms King Super Justice Minister.
“Felix
August 29, 2008 at 6:29 pm
sweetd the idiot dickhead:
Unless you have some special knowledge of the case then you don’t know anything more than what we’ve all heard so you can’t be sure of anyone’s guilt or otherwise.
What do you righties have against due process?
”
It’s nothing to do with “due process” or even the current investigation. It’s simply down to the fact that this has been rumbling along for months and no one in their right mind could possibly accept that Winston can just carry on and ignore all the allegations swirling around. In the first term of Labour such allegations would have been grounds enough to drop Winnie like a hot potato.
However Clark and by implication a great many lefties such as one of the authors of this blog apparently think they can steamroller on because the ETS has to be passed before the election at any cost. I can think of much more important things than the ETS that should be happening right now.
Who is ignoring “all the allegations swirling around” Swampy?
Not the Privileges Committee. Not the SFO.
But at least you recognise them as allegations which is a lot better than many of the foaming righties here.
Due process kiddies, look it up if you have to.
False allegations hurt more than a Howard animal farm taser up the anal passage.
Felix:
Is the foreign minister able to properly do his job while there are allegations that he failed to declare a donation to his party, or a gift to himself, as he was required to do under the Electoral Act and the register of pecuniary interests? Is the foreign minister able to properly do his job while the serious fraud office is investigating him for serious or complex fraud?
Is it acceptable for the prime minister to allow the foreign minister to wage a war with the media, defame them, and claim they forged evidence against him, when she knows that a genuine “conflict of evidence” exists between her foreign minister’s statements, and the statements of the prime minister’s party’s biggest financial donor? Is it acceptable for somebody to hold a ministerial warrant while accusing the serious fraud office of corruptly conspiring against him?
Is it acceptable for a person holding a ministerial warrant to claim in the House, to the media, and to the public that he will provide all the information exonerating him, and yet continue to withhold that information for six months?
Is it acceptable for a person to hold a ministerial warrant while continuing to change his previous statements to the House, to the media, and to the public (e.g.: “I know nothing about the Spencer Trust, it has nothing to do with New Zealand First, I have nothing to do with it,” and claim to the Serious Fraud Office that all the money that went to the Spencer Trust was spent on NZ First activities, while not declaring the Spencer Trust income as a donation on NZFirst’s electoral return?
Winston Peters has had plenty of time to face due process. The Prime Minister knew that there were major inconsistencies, and failed to act for six months. This is not about due process. Due process will assess whether Winston Peters did anything illegal. The Prime Minister should have acted earlier to ensure Winston Peters acted appropriately. He didn’t. She didn’t. She should have sacked him long ago. He’s made a mockery of parliament and government in general. Once again, he’s shown he can’t be trusted to hold a ministerial warrant.
yes to all the above. wiinie is sui generis.. a thing unto himself and by the way who is making al these rules you speak of. where is it written that any one must do all that crap just to conform to your idea of the perfect politician. this is real life not some silly little text book you may have read. be careful dude you might strangle yourself with your own underpants if you pull them right up tight.
Once again, he’s shown he can’t be trusted to hold a ministerial warrant.
Tim, at what point did this become true?
Was it when the Foreign Minister opposed the trade deal with China, or when he attacked various minorities in speeches pandering to prejudice, or when he walked out of the Cabinet in 1998, or when he was a talkback hero in 1996, or … when?
Winston Peters today is Winston Peters of the last 15 years, since NZ First was formed. Throughout those 15 years, National have NEVER said that Peters was beyond the pale. Never said that he could not be a minister in a National-led government. Not once. The warrant was up for auction, and National were bidding. And you know it.
Until last week. Until it was, finally, seen as politically advantageous to do so. Until it could be spun (absurdly) as principle, when of course it was just another move in the game. It is the same Winston Peters, except now he’s at 2 or 3% in the polls.
That high horse you and John Key are on is nothing more than two National Party strategists in a pantomime costume. So spare us the dramatic monologue, because the audience can see this show for what it is: a comedy.
Sigh, I feel like I’m feeding a troll by even engaging with you Randal. But can you honestly say, and let’s just try and get a little bit of perspective here, that if any of these circumstances had gone on with Winston as a senior minister in Jenny Shipley’s government, that Helen Clark wouldn’t be jumping up and down calling for his resignation?
Because I seem to remember that much less significant allegations were swirling around Winston’s behaviour Winston was a senior member of Jenny Shipley’s government, and Helen Clark called for him to be sacked then. I don’t remember you lining up defending Winston then.
Is the foreign minister able to properly do his job while there are allegations that he failed to declare a donation to his party, or a gift to himself, as he was required to do under the Electoral Act and the register of pecuniary interests?
Yeah silly Winston. He should have used a shell “Trust” like the National Party did to legally sanitise his donations.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/02/22/time-to-tell-us-about-your-donors-national/
Is it acceptable for the prime minister to allow the foreign minister
You Nats are just desperate to pin something on the PM aren’t you! HC is quoted in The Herald as follows:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529610&pnum=0
Contributes to NZF or some other fund? That’s not exactly a smoking gun when Peters denies it.
Is it acceptable for a person holding a ministerial warrant to claim in the House
Is it acceptable for the leader of the opposition to use shell trusts to anonymise donors that should be publicly known? Is it acceptable for the leader of the opposition to collude with a third party to circumvent electoral law and then lie about it to the public? (Oh wait – no – we know the answer to that one – it isn’t, Brash got caught and had to resign). Is it acceptable for the leader of the opposition to tell porkies to the people about what his party will do if they get elected (thank you Secret Agenda taper!)? Is it acceptable for the leader of the opposition to develop “policy” in such secrecy that even his spokespeople don’t know it so he has to keep correcting them? Ho humm, what a silly game.
But you did actually say something interesting upthread: Just a few weeks ago, Winston publicly said he knew nothing about the Spencer Trust, and that it had nothing to do with New Zealand First.
That would be very interesting if true – source please?
Gobsmacked that is a good point. I don’t know what high horse you think I’m on. I have thought for the last fifteen years that Winston is poison for anybody who associates with him. You may be confusing me with somebody who has ever defended him. I haven’t. You may also be confusing me with somebody who thinks that it is purely for reasons of principle that John Key has made the decision he has not to allow him in any future government. I don’t. I agree there is an element of strategic convenience, but I’m glad that’s been made.
Tim
OK, I accept that you would prefer opposition to being in government with Peters “inside the tent”. There are people on both left and right who believe that, but they are certainly quiet in public.
Here’s how it used to be, lest we forget:
Audrey Young in the Herald, May 16, 2005
“A power-sharing scenario in which New Zealand First leader Winston Peters becomes Prime Minister in a coalition Government with National is being discussed informally among some MPs of both parties.
Such an outcome would be possible if NZ First held the balance of power after the next election. Recent polling suggests that possibility cannot be discounted.
Until now, the assumption had been that Mr Peters and his small party (13 MPs at present), could again be kingmakers after this year’s election, as they were in 1996, deciding whether the larger Labour or National led a coalition Government.
But there is another scenario in which Mr Peters could be Prime Minister for half, if not all, of a three-year term of a National-New Zealand First coalition, even if he wins fewer MPs than National.
The talents of National leader Don Brash, the former Reserve Bank Governor, would be turned to the finance portfolio.”
…
The idea has been widely enough discussed for the weekly National Business Review to endorse it on Friday in an editorial saying: “Peters as Prime Minister with Brash and [John] Key on the finance front could be the potent mix the country needs.”
rob, on your first point, National declared on its donation returns money received from its trusts to the National Party. There was never a secret that the trusts existed. They go back many years. You won’t find the Spencer Trust on any of New Zealand First’s election returns. There is a difference between legal activities and illegal activities. If the money received from Bob Jones went to the Spencer Trust, and was spent on New Zealand First, then the Spencer Trust had to be declared as a donor.
Contributes to NZF or some other fund? That’s not exactly a smoking gun when Peters denies it.
Peters flatly denied receiving any money from Owen Glenn. Whether it went to his legal fund, the Spencer Trust, or the New Zealand First party is just playing cute with the public. He held up the sign, NO, got that sunshine? He further accused the Herald of forging the email. That is essentially dishonest. I agree, rob, Brash did get caught, and did have to resign. He didn’t get to face due process: public credibility shot, so he stepped down. Peters’ public credibility shot, and the prime minister protects him.
It took a while to find the Spencer Trust quote, but here it is: “Mr Peters said he had not solicited the donation, as Sir Robert claimed. He said he had no involvement with the Spencer Trust, that he did not know what the trust had used the money for, and that he had not spoken to his brother about the trust.”
Now, to me that looks like that statement to the Herald on 26 July is in direct conflict with Peter Williams’ statement to the SFO and the media today that all the money that was donated to the Spencer Trust was spent on NZ First activities. Or is there another interpretation?
gobsmacked – that’s like some spooky alternative time line story from an old episode of Star Trek. Scary! Now how am I going to get to sleep?
Tim:
No blogs at the time? By that stage the usenet forum alt.politics.nz etc were pretty unusable as well. There are also the age issues.
I actually a bit annoyed that this thing with Winston and NZF has flared up. The problem is that he works best politically when he is the downtrodden underdog. He is now in a good position (assuming that the SFO and PC don’t find anything particularly damaging) to play that game again this election and head for 5%…
I was hoping for terminal respectability to remove NZF from the political landscape. But if they do get back then I have no doubt that they will be in negotiation with the NZLP during coalition forming. Effectively the voters will have put them back in for that purpose.
In the end what the Labour members are concerned with is getting their policies into action. Most would probably prefer doing that with the Greens. However you don’t get policy enacted while you’re on the opposition benches, so we’d expect negotiation with whomever the electorate throws up for us to work with to achieve our objectives.
Ultimately the voters give the coalition choices under MMP, not the politicians. Key’s stance just makes it apparent to me that the National politicians still haven’t grasped that essential fact. Probably why he is wanting to change the electoral system.
captcha: invested reserves
rob, on your first point, National declared on its donation returns money received from its trusts to the National Party.
Yes – very clever – to keep the letter of the law while circumventing the intent. Go to this page here Tim:
http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/donations_summary.html
See all the donors listed? As they should be? Check out 2005 in particular. See National’s donors? Why no – it’s the “Trusts”. We are supposed to know who donates to our politicians Tim, and we don’t know who donates to National, because they did so via shell Trusts to launder the money. It stinks. Wake up.
Peters flatly denied receiving any money from Owen Glenn.
So he did, and it appears that it went to his legal defence fund. Same shell game as National play with their “Trusts”. See how it stinks?
Peters’ public credibility shot, and the prime minister protects him.
How? By having him stand down? Or by waiting for the due process of the SFO and the Privileges Committee? You’d prefer what exactly – the lynch mob that some have been calling for?
It took a while to find the Spencer Trust quote, but here it is:
Well then you misrepresented what he said Tim. What he said was usual politician speak, it sounds like it says something, but it doesn’t. Read it carefully and compare it with your incorrect claims about it.
Rob, the National Party trusts were not illegal before this year. They operated for many years without legislative change. Labour operates a legal defence trust fund as well, which anonymises donations. The SFO looked into National’s trust arrangements in 2002, and declared them lawful. It took five years for Labour to enact legislation to make them unlawful.
So he did, and it appears that it went to his legal defence fund. Same shell game as National play with their “Trusts’. See how it stinks?
Again there’s a difference rob. National declared its funding from the trusts on its donations returns, as required by law. Nick Smith declared his pecuniary interest as a beneficiary of a legal defence fund, as required by the registry of pecuniary interests. Winston Peters did neither. I have never seen any National Party leader flat-out deny National receiving money from a large donor, when subsequently proven to do so. Winston flatly denied receiving money from Owen Glenn. He did so, after the Prime Minister had informed him that Owen Glenn was certain that he did donate money.
How? By having him stand down? Or by waiting for the due process of the SFO and the Privileges Committee? You’d prefer what exactly – the lynch mob that some have been calling for?
Neither. The PM knew there was a conflict of evidence way back in February when Owen Glenn informed her of it. For six months she said she would not take any action against Winston Peters unless she saw evidence that he was being untruthful. I’ve never been prime minister before, and I never will, but I’d like to think if I were in her job, and my largest donor tells me that he’s made a substantial donation to another party, I’d do a little more than accept the foreign minister’s blind assurance that nothing of the sort took place.
Helen Clark’s record is not to allow due process to follow. She has stood down more ministers than any other prime minister in New Zealand history. She did so on the basis of political expedience. Lianne Dalziel never faced due process for lying to the media: she got stood down. Taito Phillip Field was sacked before he faced a serious fraud inquiry. Dover Samuels was dumped from cabinet because of “rumours”. The test for Helen Clark has been whether there is a public scandal, and if so whether that public scandal is preventing the minister from properly carrying out their job. This scandal has been going on for the last six months, and Helen Clark hasn’t done her job, to fire him, until now. Even now, he hasn’t been sacked. He’s on full pay, with full perks, as a Minister. The only thing he’s been relieved of is his portfolio responsibilities. That’s a pretty comfortable spot to be in, when you’re fighting for your political survival eight weeks from an election, and you’ve still got all your ministerial staff, ministerial perks, ministerial allowances, ministerial housing etc to fight with.
The money-part of the last quote is Winston telling the media he didn’t know what the Spencer Trust money was used for. He has now given an outright assurance that the Spencer Trust donations were all spent on New Zealand First party activities. You might be happy write that off as politician speak, but he knew about the Spencer Trust and trifled with the media to avoid exposure.
Rob, the National Party trusts were not illegal before this year.
I didn’t say they were at illegal, I said they broke the intent of the law, and you haven’t denied that. Once again, the public is supposed to know who the donors are and they don’t. As per The Hollow men there is evidence and accusation of National Party policy for sale to for example the insurance industry. We would know a lot more if we knew who donated and we don’t. It stinks.
Winston Peters did neither.
Act and National have already had their best shot at Peters over this issue. They didn’t lay a glove on him:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0808/S00223.htm
I will not be at all surprised if one of the ongoing investigations into Peter’s turns up evidence of real impropriety. But as far as I am aware there is no smoking gun yet.
I have never seen any National Party leader flat-out deny National receiving money from a large donor, when subsequently proven to do so.
Well no, no one asks the Nats – though Colin Espiner almost worked up the nerve:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/blogs/politics/2008/02/22/time-to-tell-us-about-your-donors-national/
But they have effectively listed their donors as anonymous via the Trusts, when they are well known to the National leadership, which is perilously close to a corrupt electoral practice.
Neither. The PM knew there was a conflict of evidence way back in February
If The Herald quote above is correct then than it is by no means clear. The PM has not protected Peters as you claim, Peters has been stood down and is being investigated. The PM actually delayed the dissolution of the SFO so that the enquiry into Peters could go ahead. How exactly is that protecting him?
She has stood down more ministers than any other prime minister in New Zealand history.
Yes, it’s a bugger having high standards.
Lianne Dalziel never faced due process for lying to the media: she got stood down.
And it is not yet clear that Peters has lied to the media. Read the Scoop Link above. He may have lied, lots of people are assuming he’s lied, but it is not yet proven.
The money-part of the last quote is Winston telling the media he didn’t know what the Spencer Trust money was used for.
Oh come on. He may well not have known in specific detail what it was used for. Accusations came up, he has looked until it, and now he does know. I’m sure that would be Winston’s story, and it may even be true. You said “Winston publicly said he knew nothing about the Spencer Trust, and that it had nothing to do with New Zealand First” – both your claims are not supported by what he actually said.
This really is a very interesting debate rob, and no doubt although everybody else is probably either out clubbing or asleep, it probably doesn’t do much for either of our reputations to be considered the two political geeks arguing away at the points on a Saturday night.
As per The Hollow men there is evidence and accusation of National Party policy for sale to for example the insurance industry. We would know a lot more if we knew who donated and we don’t. It stinks.
Hang on a moment. You’re criticising me, and the Nats, for rushing to judgement on Winston Peters’ behaviour, and not allowing due process to follow its course, and relying simply on media speculation as what might have happened. I haven’t heard anybody in the National Party say that there’s no point in the SFO completing its investigations. But here you are rushing to judgement on the National Party’s activities, based solely on Nicky Hagar’s speculation, after the National Party faced an SFO inquiry into its trusts (in 2002), and cleared the trusts of financial impropriety. The due process has been followed, and cleared the National Party. Yet you’re happy to form a contrary view.
As for the insurance industry stuff, there hasn’t been any evidence put before any law-enforcement body in New Zealand to the effect that National committed a corrupt act by being bribed by the insurance industry. That’s the basis of what you’re saying. If there were, I’m sure it would have been done by now. What is it, two, three years since the Hollow Men came out? Still no bribery charges.
I don’t know what you mean by the intent of the law. National Party trusts have been known about for many years, investigated, and cleared. It isn’t clear to me that the intent of the 1993 electoral act, supported by Labour, was to identify the end donor. It was intended to identify the last source of the funds. I’m not a lawyer, and you might have a better legal brain than me, but legislative intent goes to the heart of legislative interpretation. A judge’s job is to identify the intent of the law and apply it. No judge has ever found the National Party to have broken the intent of the law. Conversely, the SFO investigated and found that the National Party had specifically not broken the intent of the law.
Meanwhile, it took five years for the Labour Party to change the intent of the law, to identify the original source of the donation. I actually agree with that change in the electoral act. In all this time, the New Zealand First Party has failed to comply with either the “intent”, or as you put it, the “letter” of the law. Money that came through the Spencer Trust was spent on New Zealand First purposes. That’s what we heard uncategorically from Peter Williams today. It wasn’t declared as a donation to New Zealand First. That’s what we’ve understood from every New Zealand First electoral donations return.
Oh come on. He may well not have known in specific detail what it was used for.
Oh come on! He said he didn’t know what it was used for. He didn’t say: “I don’t know the specific line items of expenditure that the donations were applied to. Is it credible for a leader of a political party that receives large sums of money from trusts, to say: “I don’t know what the money was used for.”? Clearly he knows. He doesn’t have to know the detail. The truthful answer is: “The money came to New Zealand First. I don’t know what specific items it was used for.”
Lying to the media isn’t a criminal offence, either. No inquiry is investigating whether he did lie to the media. Helen Clark did not make her decision solely based on due process. Winston got too hot for her to handle.
This really is a very interesting debate rob, and no doubt although everybody else is probably either out clubbing or asleep, it probably doesn’t do much for either of our reputations to be considered the two political geeks arguing away at the points on a Saturday night.
On those terms my reputation here was shot long long time ago. I like to work at night, it’s quiet (but I do let The Standard distract me). And I’m well past the age where I’m even remotely interested in clubbing.
I haven’t heard anybody in the National Party say that there’s no point in the SFO completing its investigations.
Well then listen up, because here is John Key rushing to judgement and claiming that the outcome of the SFO enquiry doesn’t matter:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=1502733&objectid=10529783
As for the insurance industry stuff, there hasn’t been any evidence put before any law-enforcement body in New Zealand to the effect that National committed a corrupt act by being bribed by the insurance industry.
No there hasn’t, though evidence is presented in The Hollow Men. The point is not that I’m interested in a judgement on this, the point is that donations are supposed to be public so that there is less risk of this kind of thing happening. National’s donations are not public because they are laundered through “Trusts”.
It isn’t clear to me that the intent of the 1993 electoral act, supported by Labour, was to identify the end donor. It was intended to identify the last source of the funds.
Ahh, no. Read the Act:
That’s the person who made the donation, not “last source of the funds” – pardon me that is a rather desperate clutching at straws.
Conversely, the SFO investigated and found that the National Party had specifically not broken the intent of the law.
2002? Sounds like another issue entirely – references please?
In all this time, the New Zealand First Party has failed to comply with either the “intent’, or as you put it, the “letter’ of the law. Money that came through the Spencer Trust was spent on New Zealand First purposes. That’s what we heard uncategorically from Peter Williams today. It wasn’t declared as a donation to New Zealand First. That’s what we’ve understood from every New Zealand First electoral donations return.
It may well be that Peters, like National, has kept the letter of the law while evading its intent – you are rushing to a judgement that neither the SFO or the PC has made yet. And we are going round in circles at this point.
Oh come on! He said he didn’t know what it was used for … The truthful answer is: “The money came to New Zealand First. I don’t know what specific items it was used for.’
Sorry, I still think Peters has wriggle room there. He can know the purpose of the trust without knowing what (specifically) it used the money for.
Helen Clark did not make her decision solely based on due process. Winston got too hot for her to handle.
Winston has been too hot to handle for days, and HC resisted incredible pressure to stand him down sooner that this. But she followed due process.
Anyway, Goodnight.
gobsmacked:
On the assumption you didn’t steal that from someone else, that’s a classic quote that’s worth inscribing on something (even if only the plinth of a camoflage-wearing John Key bobblehead doll)
I, on the other hand, will be stealing it, and recycling it in a campaign somewhere (probably via a candidate of whom you’d heartily disapprove *evil laughter*).
randal:
Well boo hoo. You mean like using Parliamentary privilege to impugn the reputations of dozens of people throughout your career? And then never having the guts to repeat anything where you can be sued?
Robinsod:
Of course, because what NZ really needs is effective, principled, liberal MPs and Ministers with the country’s best interests at heart. As toad points out above, if the PM had any respect for those qualities she might have tossed the Greens a bone. But instead she’s ensured Winston keeps his Ministerial salary, perks and large staff who – with no Ministerial work to do – can now devote themselves to spending your money and mine on NZF’s relection campaign.
Yes, let’s vote for more of that, shall we?
Another day and still Winston’s supporters on this site cling to the due process excuse and query whether he has in fact lied.
Assuming their is nothing out of order with the Spencer trust why has NZF declared no donations?
Assuming Winston genuinely didn’t know that he’d been helped out by Owen Glenn why did he categorically deny that he had and during those denials demand the resignations of several reporters ?
The man is a prevaricating poppinjay.
hs,
The electoral finance rules in play at the time allowed a donation to be split into multiple $9,999.99 chunks and not declared.
and you sir have your ears painted on and your fingers on 10. if you think that anyone in their right mind is going to read any of the screeds you have so laboriously cut and pasted in here then you are a biggger fool than I thought.
randal,
I’m going to assume that isn’t directed at me (due to my lack of sir-ness), but that doesn’t tell me who you are insulting
Anita are you saying that he’s got payment from parties laundered it through the Spencer trust and they’ve then put them through to NZF in sums lower than $9999 is that legal ?
Why don’t any of the larger parties do the same thing ?
While not liking Ralston that much I though he summed up the overall situation with Peter’s well.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529821
“it promises to be great theatre if nothing else.”
Pretty much sums up what WP has become – a publicly paid prevaricating poppinjay
mmmm nice alliteration
hs,
Under the old rules it was legal, yes. The rule was any “anonymous” donation $10k or below did not need to be declared, so big donations were split into mutiple “anonymous” donations (you can check out the old rules here).
They did
Have you read The Hollow Men?
It seems though that Mike Williams has been on his knees to Owen Glenn, not 2 months ago, for more money!
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/08/labour-begs-for-more.html
That defies belief considering Labour’s public criticism and embarrassment of the man.
It shows just how disparate and desperate Labour now is.
Meanwhile the Labour Party Blog is talking about an irrelevant self constructed and self important “social report” like it is accurate or an issue.
What a joke this government has become.
Aniat
I think we might be talking at cross purposes again I was referring to the register here.
http://www.elections.org.nz/record/donations/
Are you suggesting that Labour and National have more money in $9999 lots that hasn’t been declared.
Bugger still can’t edit.
Darren I find this very hard to believe do you have any links to the story in the MSM ?
It is on Stuff HS:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4675544a11.html
Captcha “Con”
Ye Gods …… clearly they have more cheek than GB’s bottom.
I suppose it explains why they were happy to suggest he was confused and deluded about the WP issue in the house – he’s obviously not going to be giving anymore donations to the present government.
I wonder if they promised him an honorary consulship if he donated just one more time ?