National’s trusty donors

Written By: - Date published: 4:36 pm, September 5th, 2007 - 4 comments
Categories: election funding - Tags:

The Tory blogworld went apoplectic over Tane’s comment that it was no surprise Bell Gully lawyers opposed the Electoral Finance Bill because the National Party got $62,000 from the Bell Gully Trust Account in 2005. National Party insider David Farrar gave us a down-the-nose lecture on his kiwiblog on how trust accounts work, saying that it was like accusing the BNZ when someone donated with one of their bank cheques.

Not quite David – Tane’s onto something I think. The Bell Gully partner who wrote the attack on the Electoral Finance Bill that Farrar enthused over, Roger Partridge, was the lawyer who represented David Richwhite when he settled out of court earlier this year to the tune of $20 million in the insider trading case brought by the Securities Commission over the sale of New Zealand Rail shares. David’s done nothing wrong said Roger – yeah right, nothing to the tune of $20 million!

David Richwhite is listed by Nicky Hager’s sources in “The Hollow Men” as one of the major donors to the National Party in 2005. What would be really interesting to know, and David Farrar probably would as he has been on the National Party Head Office staff, is whether the $62,000 listed as coming from the Bell Gully Trust account is treated as a named donation? If it is, then the National Party could lawfully know who the real donor was. It could be David, it could be Rodger – that $20 million settlement would have generated a handsome fee.

4 comments on “National’s trusty donors ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Buzzy Bee 1
    5 September 2007 at 5:29 pm

    What really astounds me is the hypocrisy of these right wing fuck3rs (can i say that?). They’re all “holier than thou” with their “limits on free speech” crap but when it comes to admitting that they’re the ones that tried to shaft democracy last election with the Exclusive Brethren, Fairtax, insurance industry, sensible sentencing (and who knows who else) they either dive for cover or raise their voices in the hope that their white noise will drown out robust debate.

  2. rjs131 2
    5 September 2007 at 5:32 pm

    What is the point that you are trying to make? What has the settlement with the Securities Commission got to do wtih anything. How would have National been involved in that decision? Are you somehow suggesting that Roger Partridge is corrupt or covering for big business. And last time i checked there is a funny little thing called privilege so Bell Gully is under no oblgiation to disclose who is involved with those donors. Are you suggesting an end to legal privilege? Maybe we can therefore uncover what comments have been made by loyal labour MPs to their lawyers – i would for one love to know what Mr Field and his lawyer have been discussing .

  3. tom-tom 3
    5 September 2007 at 9:24 pm

    “David Farrar … has been on the National Party Head Office staff” – how twisted! Have they really taken guidance and advice from that flunky? More fool they. If Farrar represents the calibre of National’s advisors, we should all be nervous. Would English really listen to Farrar’s pap?

  4. Sam Dixon 4
    6 September 2007 at 1:32 am

    Curiouser and curiouser, its really fascinating to see what’s going on in the shadows with the Nats:

    – National uses Bell Gully’s trust account to mask the identity of a major donor, undoubtedly with the law firm’s knowledge and consent as these accounts had not previously been used for funneling donations.

    – Bell Gully publishes a paper on electoral finance reform that just so happens to toe the National line, and advocates keeping this channel for anonymising donations open.

    – Farrar picks up the paper and exclaims ‘independent legal experts agree with us, um, me!’, when in reality Bell Gully is already linked to National in this area.

    – then the author of this National-line paper turns out to be secretive National supporter David Richwaite’s lawyer.

    So we can say two things: Bell Gully is a National mouthpiece and it is allowing its trust account to be used for purposes that harm trans parity in our democracy, and we have two big questions: who are the donors National is taking money from once their identity has been masked using trust accounts in Bell Gully and three other law firms and, crucially, what is the political downside for National in having these people publicly identified as bank-rolling National?

    You would have thought that, even if The Hollow Men didn’t make the Nats reflect on the propriety of their behaviour, it would have at least told them you will be found out sooner or later.