Owen Glenn
January 31st, 2006 at 12:17 pm by David FarrarSpirit of 76 blogs about Investigate’s feature on Owen Glenn, the ex-pat billionairre who donated $500,000 to Labour.
I haven’t read the article but I’m not sure there is anything too new in it. Basically the sum total is:
* Glenn’s company ships tobacco for BAT
* He was fined $1.5 million by the US Government in 1999
* Some of his colleagues are dubious
* He would benefit from a free trade deal with China
* His company pays almost no tax
I don’t see any smoking gun here. The business of the fine was covered by me back in May. It is useful to republicise it, but it isn’t anything brand new.
What is the bigger issue for me is the outraegous allegations by Mallard about mythical National Party donors in the US and the fact that if Glenn was a National Party donor there would have been months and months of stories about him.
If he had been a National Party donor, I suggested in May the headlines would have been:
“There has been wide-spread condemnation of the revelation that a billionaire who has not lived in NZ for 40 years has been funding the National Party with the largest donation in electoral history. Mr Glenn, who was prosecuted by US authorities and paid $800,000 in a settlement, had previously made secret donations, but they now stand revealed. In the US people can not donate more than $2,000 to a party, and donations from foreigners are banned. The donation scandal has led to calls for similar restrictions in NZ …… “
No tag for this post.
January 31st, 2006 at 12:41 pm
The difference being the Owen and Labour were open and transparent about the donation from day one. Unlike National’s secretive deals with goodness knows who and the Exclusive Brethren.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 12:44 pm
David, the double standards are sickeningly obvious.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 12:50 pm
Wow Tony so young to start smearing. You also like Mallard allege secret US funders do you? On what basis do you allege secretive deals with goodness knows who in relation to funding?
And the Brethren donated no money to National. They decided to campaign to change the Government just as the unions campaigned against a change. Unless you have proof of a “deal” with the Brethren then again stop making smears up. Trevor is much better at it than you.
And tell me honestly Tony. If National had announced a $500,000 donation from a billionaire who had not lived here for 40 years. Look me in the eye and say you wouldn not be screaming about it?
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 1:48 pm
Of course, Tony, this electoral cycle Labour is going to be so “open and transparent” there will be no more six figure donations from Mr. A. Nonymous on file wiith the Electoral Commission? (2002 – $380,000 total. Largest single donation: $100,000. 1999 – $824,000 total. Largest single donation: $195,000, with three others of 100K or more)
Now, goodness knows who has that amount to throw around and why do they want to keep their names off the public record? But I’ll say this, if there are secret cabals of rich “American bagmen” financing the National Party when they’re not getting confused and cutting cheques to Dover Samuels (a la Julian Robertson), they need to pull finger and get busy. I’m really tired of buying raffle tickets and hitting the rubber chicken circuit.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 2:31 pm
The Labour Party will take money from anywhere. The financing of the Labour Party would make gripping reading.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 2:36 pm
Tony Milne said,
“The difference being the Owen and Labour were open and transparent about the donation from day one.”
That’s correct Tony, Owen Glenn weighed up his options, and for the benefit of all NZers gave Labour the thumbs up. Good on him!
I can’t see why National are moaning! they received their fare share from former ACT backers and Stooges for Nationals Election Campaign.
And we all know how much credibility the ACT Party has now don’t we?
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 3:39 pm
Aren’t there things that both National and Labour paint about each other?
Labour wastes your tax dollars
National only cares about business
Labour lets moral standards slip
National gets it’s backdoor instructions from big business / foreign governments
Labour is a pawn of the unions
National doesn’t care about the poor
Now, the comments about the party *you* support are obviously spurious, and the comments about the other party seem like just stating the truth, right?
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Why is it that the anon commentators are the most stupid? Oh wait, obvious. Would be ashamed to be known in public to be such a moron.
If Mr MSM could read better than a three year old he would see I said I did not think there was anything much to the Investigate article. Now shall I repeat that slowly again.
So trying to invent that I am oppossed to a free trade deal is a pathethic smear attempt.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 4:03 pm
How open and transparent has Taito Clark been over the lies she leaked during the Doone affair. If this donation had been made to National the media would have been mobbing, harrassing, and hounding Don Brash and distorting every explanation he made.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 4:55 pm
Its good to see the Owen Glenn story making its way over from the Sir Humphreys Blog and Whale Oil.
Whale Oil reprinted my comments, which I have included below.
Since then, I would add the irony of an anti-smoking government, which banned smoking in bars, is now being bankrolled by big tobacco.
The ironies and hypocracies is breathtaking, but increasingly par for the course from the Liar-bour Party.
Now, just what is going on with Philip taito field and his enquiry??
Now, here
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Cought your breath yet, darren? Now tell me how many people take any notice of “Investigate” magazine…..
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 6:25 pm
A f**king site more than have ever heard of you, johnie.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 6:58 pm
So? Got evidence for the government’s support for Hamas, have you? Or is puerile invective more your line?
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Actually yeah, anywhere up to 100,000 people read Investigate each issue – it fluctuates from issue to issue as each magazine does…
As to DPF’s comments, I note that he hasn’t read the article. Yes, we were aware of the earlier work done on Kiwiblog, Sir Humphreys and elswhere, but the story does in fact go considerably further than that.
Yes, virtually all the AM were advised of the story, something in the region of 100 promotional copies were sent to journalists and producers across the board.
As you can see, they all felt Brethrengate was an incredibly important, pillar of democracy story to run with during the election. Not one researched the background of Owen Glenn in anything more than a one-off Google-glance. Not one has asked any further questions in regard to this matter.
If anything, the Investigate article reinforces the impression that NZ MSM are overwhelmingly left-wing in outlook and simply don’t like to recognise stories that threaten their political worldview.
I struck this when I worked at TV3 and TVNZ. Nothing has changed.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 10:11 pm
Thanks Ian. No I haven’t read the article and will try to do so. I agree that the media treatment is incredibly unequal. However I also do want to avoid a situation where individuals who donate money being assumed to have impure motives.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 10:38 pm
Graig Ranapia: “Of course, Tony, this electoral cycle Labour is going to be so “open and transparent” there will be no more six figure donations from Mr. A. Nonymous on file wiith the Electoral Commission?…..Now, goodness knows who has that amount to throw around and why do they want to keep their names off the public record?”
Here’s a suggestion, Craig. How about an Auckland millionaire (and very prominent Councillor) who received two six-figure business development grants to explore exports opportunities to South America…..and whose company then donated a six-figure sum to Labour.
When one considers the changes to industrial relations law that enabled government funding of unions which then returned the funding to Labour in the form of donations and free advertising, it’s another example of Labour using taxpayers’ money for its own purposes.
Vote:February 1st, 2006 at 9:47 am
I said “take notice”, Ian. People may simply be reading to see what the tinfoil hat brigade is doing this month.
Vote:February 1st, 2006 at 11:34 am
Yes, “take notice” is the issue Johnnie.
Vote:Why do our AM refuse to take notice of news that does not fit in with its ideological blinkers?
Surely, don’t the owners of various newspapers realise the economic damage that such one-sideness is actually costing them lost readership figures and hence advertisers.
For if you are out of step with your readers, you lose them. Basic rule of publishing.
Actually, Fairfax Australia realises this and stories have appeared in the Australian media about this.
But New Zealand’s small population means a small numbers of outlets have a tight grip on the news ‘agenda’.
Countries with a larger population allow a diversity- thus Australia will have Fairfax backing Labor and the Murdoch papers more sympathetic to John Howard.
The UK has a full range of AM , from far left to far right, so all views are expressed and little gets swept under the carpet like what happens in NZ.
However, by ignoring stories like Owen Glenn’s bankrolling of Liar-bour, the AM is ever slowly losing credibility bit-by-bit, day-by- day.
Yes, I work for the AM myself, one of perhaps a handful of righty journos- certainly my two co-workers are hard lefties.
Blogs and independent publications like Investigate are revealing what is being hidden by the AM and likewise revealing how much the AM is in cahoots with Helengrad in covering these things.
As the blogs and Investigate gain critical mass, with enough readers that their revelations will become public discourse by the watercooler or wherever, then people will know how the AM is failing them and has been in the pocket of Helengrad.
One might wonder how much might be linked by Helengrad adverts for government jobs , or promotions for Working For Families.
Do you get many government ads for Investigate Ian? If not, why not? Would you like some?
Anyway, Investigate and the blogosphere has seen it all before.
Just prior to the election, AL at Sir Humphreys published all the Doonegate papers online.
The AM were informed about the details which showed how Helen Clark lied to the Sunday Star-Times.
The AM were informed just as they were wetting themselves over Don Brash’s honesty over Bretherengate.
Now, some 30 or so journalists, including big names from tv and the parliamentary gallery were informed, but none took notice, except one.
Only Ian Wishart took notice, and as I have said before, it gave him a cracking exclusive story.
The proof that the PM lied to the media over how she got rid of her old police commissioner Peter Doone, but Investigate also had the pre-election media cover-up angle as well.
Again, this was a story ignored by the AM.
Blogs like Kiwiblog and Sir Humphreys had posted on Owen Glenn before, and having finally read his article, Ian Wishart’s feature does ad much to what was originally out there. Something well worthy of a decent piece on the tv news or 60 minutes, a Sunday Star-Times P1 lead, etc, etc.
The AM could have investigated Glenn himself, as sufficient was already out there in the public domain and on Google to give them something to start with, something to attract their interest or suspicions.
But again, it was left to Investigate to properly investigate.
And again, this was a story ignored by the AM.
I have, however, noted the AM follow-up some Investigate stories when it suits them.
There was recent story that appeared in the Herald about experiments with foetuses or something at Auckland university.
But I guess that story wouldn’t harm Helengrad.
The story behind Doonegate would.
The story behind Owen Glenn also would.
But neither have made it onto the AM.
To paraphase Private Eye, by any chance are these facts related. I think we should be told.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pm
The issues of investigate I’ve seen have been an interesting mixture of paranoia, distortion and misinformation….a bit like a printed version of sir humphs, or some of the other rabid rightwing blogs.
Vote:That’s not to say that I take much notice of newpaper or radio stories either.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
Obviously we will agree to disagree on this Johnnie.
Vote:But this is the issue with Helen on the front cover looking…….. well, considerably different to how she looked on the front cover of Australian Women’s Weekly in the run up to the September election.
But I would say Investigate had the more honest portrait.