2007 Donations Return
April 30th, 2008 at 7:39 pm by David FarrarThe Electoral Commission has just published the donations returns of parties for 2007. Up until December the old Electoral Act applied. Only donations to a party of over $10,000 get disclosed.
The totals for each party are:
- Maori Party $70,000
- Labour $1,030,446.39
- National 704,100
- Greens $181,046.23
- United Future $0
- Progressive $0
- ACT – not received as at 5 pm
- NZ First – not received as at 5 pm
Now who were the disclosed donors to each. In order:
Maori Party
Susan Cullen donated $70,000. Susan (who I have met) is probably best known for her work with Te Wananga o Aotearoa and according to the Herald is worth $30 million.
Labour
Do you remember how Mike “confused” Williams told us fundraising to repay the $800,000 was going so well, and in fact having to pay the money had given people the incentive to raise more money.
Well in fact they have effectively levied their MPs to bail them out. Looks proportional to salary. Clark gave $29,099.04 and 42 MPs gave a total of $661,568.40 which is an average of $15,035.65. So the MPs personally paid for around 80% the money the Auditor-General identified as illegally spent.
Other Individual donors were Chhour Lim Nam for $25,000. Steven Wong for $19,000 and Thomas Wang $14,188. Chhour appears to be involved in the Cambodian community, Wong is President of the Chinese Association, runs a potato chip manufacturer and was a potential Labour candidate in 2002. Wong also gave $23,000 in 2006. Wang is an Auckland businessman also.
Corporate donors were Toll NZ for $25,000, Fletcher Building for $20,000, Griffin Property for $20,000 and Westpac for $15,000.
But here is the big story. Despite spending all year railing against anonymous donations, and pledging they will stop them – they were at the same time accepting $150,000 from one anonymous donor and $50,000 from another. (and another $30,000 I missed earlier so that is $230,000)
But really the hypocrisy of spending all year railing against anonymous donations and then pocketing the largest anonymous donation a party has received since 1999 is breath taking.
NZ First
Their donation return is not yet public. It may have just come in today (the due date). I am very very interested in that return.
National
Corporate donors are DMH Developments for $50,000, Fletcher Building for $20,000, Toll NZ for $25,000 and Westpac for $15,000. One individual donated $41,000 – Susan Zhou.
Two anonymous donations – $25,000 and $15,000.
Finally there were three Trust donations – $424,100 from the infamous Waitemata Trust, $69,000 from the Ruahine Trust and $20,000 from the Nationalist Trust. These are presumably the final donations from the Trusts, as the Electoral Finance Act (one of the few good parts of it, and not a part that was in the original Bill) removes any point in donating through a Trust. Generally the trust donations will be a collation of several or many individual donations the Trust has received – Waitameta could represent 21 $20,000 donations or seven $60,000 donations etc. Of course no one knows bar the Trustees, so it is good this will be the last return where one won’t know at least the size of any donations over $10,000.
I actually thought National would have received more donations than this, considering it was logical that some people would donate before the law changed.
Greens
The Green MPs had to dig deep also. Their six MPs donated an average of $19,812.71 for a total of $118,876.20. Jeanette gave most at $34,045.28.
Also big donations from Stuart Bramhall for $30,500, Christopher Marshall $18,670 and Cliff Mason for $13,000.
Bramhall is the contact for the New Plymouth Greens. Cliff Mason is a Pathologist who stood for the Greens in 1999.
Related posts:
- Anonymous Donations starting to flow through Electoral Commission
- Donations over $20,000
- Ban all anonymous donations
- Geddis on donations
April 30th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
Surely even the most rabid Labour sycophant can see the hypocrisy here?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 7:53 pm
A good post DF, that I hope The Herald will pick up on to accompany there ‘campaign’. BTW, weren’t they going to publish the names or picture of all the MPs that voted for the EFA? Either I have not been looking hard enough or The Herald hasn’t been doing it.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
Funny all those chinese names on the Liarsparty donation list but no one called Hank Moosejaw or Eskimo Joe. Would that have any connection to approvals for stratigic asset purchase.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
A very bad look for Labour, although no trust donations, which would have been worse.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
heh what a bunch of hypocritical bullshit whiners labour are.
They are obviously in the pocket of big business and probably american drug lords as well. I mean that one 150,000 donation is very very spooky indeed.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
David, I don’t like any anonymous donations, but I find this pretty dishonest.
First you complain, in bold:
Then go on to point out, as if as an aside, that National received more than half a million bucks in donations from anonymous sources. You must think we’re pretty stupid to fall for that.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Tane, David has made it consistently clear that he does not support annonymous donations.
Labour have railed against annonymous donations.
Labour recieved last year $200 000 of annnoymous donations.
Which part of HYPOCRISY dont you get?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Tane
DPF nails it – and you reminded us in the comments just how well he nailed it. Cheers.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
A question from a non accountant..
Vote:Would those labour and green MPs be able to claim those donations on their tax returns?
G
April 30th, 2008 at 8:47 pm
Also worthy of note is that Tane has taken the time to comment about it here but hasn’t posted on his own blog about Labour accepting $200,000 in anonymous donations while pledging they will stop them. Or National receiving money from trusts, but I’m sure he/she will get around to that bit.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
I’ve got a bridge for sale, if you’re interested…
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
What is the sanction/penalty for non-disclosure?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Tane – I’m tempted to answer in Helen’s vernacular, but I won’t. Both anonymous donations and blind trusts were legal sources for donations until 31/12/2007. However I think DPF is making the point that all Labour’s whingeing and moaning about National being rorters, about big money, and about anonymous donors were the words of….Hollow Men (and Women) when Labour itself received $200,000 in dirty, big, anonymous donations. Or maybe they were just confused, like Slippery Mike.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Colonel Masters
I think when there has been a failure to disclose or laws have been broken, retrospective validation is passed and we all just move on.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
IV2…..”Labour itself received $200,000 in dirty, big, anonymous donations. Or maybe they were just confused, like Slippery Mike.”
The whole thing is getting disturbingly comical. This government is getting more and more like the “dead parrot sketch” its uncanny.
You couldn’t write this stuff
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Could someone please explain why an anonymous donation is a bad thing? I hear lefties bleating on about it all the time but for fucks sake if people have money and they want to use it politically they should bloody well be able to do it however they want. Lefties have a problem with it because anyone with real money is too smart to buy into their stupid ideology. All they are doing is trying to fight the natural order. I can’t blame them any more than I could blame the last of the mammoths for their final quivering and futile rage as they felt the life draining from them.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
“Well in fact they have effectively levied their MPs to bail them out. Looks proportional to salary. Clark gave $29,099.04”
Vote:“The Green MPs had to dig deep also. …Jeanette gave most at $34,045.28.”
Seems unusual to call females “rich pricks” but in Clark’s case it seems entirely appropriate.
Helens is the same as a fairly good deposit on a Hawaiian holiday home
Jeannette must be pist off as that would have gone a long way to the new composting toilet that doens’t discharge methane
April 30th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
The evidence suggests Mike Williams isn’t “confused,” he’s a mythomaniac. Suffering from pseudologia fantastica may indeed qualify him for a big ACC handout. Poor man. He needs help.
To clarify poor Tane’s confusion, who may be another mythomaniac, it’s called hypocrisy Tane. hĭ-pŏk’rĭ-sē
1. The practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not hold or possess; falseness.
2. An act or instance of such falseness.
[Middle English ipocrisie, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrisis, play-acting, pretense, from Greek hupokrisis, from hupokrīnesthai, to play a part, pretend...]
Hope that helps, Tane. I know it’s hard to see the plank in your own eye when the only thing you ever think about is how to criticise your enemy, but sometimes you just can’t defend the indefensible, Tane. This is one of those times.
Wonder where wodger and Sonic have got to?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Roark (60) Add karma Subtract karma +1 Says:
April 30th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Could someone please explain why an anonymous donation is a bad thing? I
Don’t think it’s a bad thing, it’s just not necessary. National used it cause it was there.
Labour reacted with the EFA, thinking it was why the Nats nearly won in 05. Clearly didn’t think it through and realised that without their own anon donationas and the overspend and the electortal bribes they would have been truly toast!
Hence $200 000 in 07, government sponsred labourtising and a lolly scramble budget.
Simple really
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 10:02 pm
“Jeannette must be pist off as that would have gone a long way to the new composting toilet that doens’t discharge methane”
Good point Patrick.
Greens are planet vandals. How awful to spend money on their own selfish re-election when the consequence is to befoul the planet with their own excrement. I think I’m going to be sick.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
You say: “Despite spending all year railing against anonymous donations, and pledging they will stop them – they were at the same time accepting $150,000 from one anonymous donor and $50,000 from another.”
Yeah, good one. Just like an MP “railing” against the current driving age, but still allowing their own child to get their licence at 15, or an MP “railing” against the current drinking age, but still allowing their child to drink as soon as they hit 18.
There are just some things that are done by an MP that are contrary to what he/she may “rail” against – because it is legal to do so.
Did you stop and think for a moment, Mr Farrar, that it could be possible that the Watemata Trust could have received one or two donations – and the people funnelled them through a trust so as not to be identified – therefore making them “anonymous” donations?
It seems a bit disingenous to make a song and dance about the Labour Party receiving an anonymous donation without giving the National Party the same scrutiny.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Uh, JH, it’s not that anonymous donations were made, it’s that Liarbore were receiving them at the very time they were railing against them.
You’re not a lefty are you?
It’s just that I often find them a little slower than most. See my 9:51 post and re-read DPF’s bold bit again and again and again. Then read my 9:51 post again. Repetition sometimes helps.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
JH
How difficult is it for you? I’ll try to help.
National acted within the law yet Labour, instead of just dealing with the law, mercilessly pilloried them for doing something Labour were doing themselves.
There now, that is not to hard is it?
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
No, I’m thinking more of a church charity railing against the evils of gambling in public while quietly applying for (and accepting) funding from the profits of Lotto and pokie machines. It may be perfectly legal, and properly disclosed, but (to paraphrase James Carville): It’s the hypocrisy, stupid.
Meanwhile, as a very small shareholder in Toll I think it could find a marginally better use for $50K than making donations to political parties. I also find it rather ironic that Labour rails (pun intended) against the influence of foreign money on our elections, but seems unaware that Toll Holdings NZ is the local arm of a foreign-owned multinational that has its fascist fingers in ‘strategic infrastructure’ from Azerbaijan to Bluff.
Vote:April 30th, 2008 at 11:42 pm
Tane: National has not spent a year railing against anonymous donations and making speech after speech about how bad they are. The hypocrisy is what I am pointing out.
JH: You use the wrong analogy. The correct analogy is an MP who makes a year of speeches against the evil of party pills and how they should be banned. But then just before the law banning them comes into force, they get caught smashed on party pills. Class A hypocrisy.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 12:07 am
Get real David, hypocrisy is rife in politics every single party is guilty of it except perhaps Act and the Greens. If you are going to point out the hypocrisies of Labour I would expect you to do the same for National but you don’t. I know you have claimed to be a classic liberal but lately you seem only to be a shill for National. Please, for all our sakes show the courage of your so called convictions and don’t try to soften the truth with spin. It is our power. We have earned it and we should not be shy in flexing it. Remember that.
[DPF: I can't criticise National for hypocrisy when they have not been hypocritical on this issue.]
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 1:36 am
DPF what is so wrong about anonymous donations exactly? Since the party has no idea who is giving them the money they will not adjust policy. National has a stirling record of never playing favourites and even when they do know who they are getting money from they do not dole out the favours – have you ever seen National doing policies that will benefit Fletcher Building or Toll NZ?
If all parties had the integrity of National electoral finance law would be a f@*k of a lot simpler
[DPF: The trouble is people assume that somehow the party does get to know, and it corrodes trust in parties as you then get hysteria about policies being for sale. Stopping large anonymous donations will remove the fuel for that fire]
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 6:36 am
I’m not surprised at their blatant double standard. Labour continues to enforce one standard on the public while reserving another for themselves. They are simply remaining true to the nature of a collective that believes it was born to rule and is somehow above the rules.
Note:
* They’ve already broken the EFA this year. (Guilty, but not prosecuted)
* They’ve received anonymous donations while railing against them
* They’ve stolen one election using public funds (Guilty, but not prosecuted)
* They’ve attempted to steal another election using public funds (Guilty, publically said they won’t do it anymore – TUI add)
And yet, by contrast, Tane and co keeps on telling us how evil National might be because of something that might have happened 20 years ago. Double standards are everywhere for these people and they’re so blinded by what they believe to be their own magnificence they cannot see a plain and simple truth.
But all of that is old news, everyone except the blatantly self delusional knows those things. What actually surprised me is the amount that MPs donate to their own parties. I am starting to think that being in politics must pay bloody well, if not in direct salaries then through influence into other activities. I mean, how many people can casually drop $34,045 or $29,099 into campaigning just because.
That is a damn sight more than the minimum wage they’re just throwing at blowing more hot air around. Rich pricks?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 7:29 am
Tane??? Where are you Tane?
Crikey. he ran away quickly didn’t he?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am
Tane??? Where are you Tane?
Crikey. he ran away quickly didn’t he?
Probably had work to do, and didn’t have enough time so had to run along…..
[DPF: Guys let's not turn every thread into a Tane thread.]
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am
“David has made it consistently clear that he does not support annonymous donations.”
I must have missed his billboards about it.
So yet again national gets over 50% of it’s money from a combination of big business and secretive trusts.
I wonder what Key is planning on giving them in return?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:38 am
Sonic – “I wonder what Key is planning on giving them in return?”
I wonder what Cullen is planning on giving Toll in return – just a whole heap of taxpayer funds for a poorly performing asset/company ?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:40 am
Did you notice NH that Toll also donated to national?
Thought not.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:41 am
sonic: So yet again national gets over …
*yawns* Quick, somebody pull his string. See if we can get another line out of him. Maybe a different one this time.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Sonic, I did actually see that – it’s not like the list is that long. Just reversing your insinuations on you.
Just goes to show that your feared “Big business” can donate without getting anything in return.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 8:51 am
Hey Sonic, what does Labour give the unions in return?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:02 am
Well over 50% of your beloved Nats funding comes from anonymous sources guys,
No wonder that banning them had you wailing and gnashing your teeth!
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:18 am
The Sonic sockpuppet wails again. What are your thoughts on Labour receiving anonymous donations at the time they were seeking to have them banned?
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:21 am
Sonic keeps making the same mistake. The amount of disclosed donations is not the same as the party’s income. They are in fact a fairly small proportion for National. The figures below are not the correct figures for National, but they are probably within the ballpark to illustrate a point:
Membership Donations 40,000 x $30 = $1.2 million
Electorate Fundraising $10,000 x 60 = $600,000
Direct Mail = $500,000
Corporate donations under $10k say 100 x $5,000 = $500,000
Donations over $10K = $700,000
So while the trust and anon donations may be 50% of the $700,000 they are around 10% of the $3.5 million in total party income if the figures above are in the right ballpark.
Again those figures are not the correct figures for National – I don’t know their full finances, but the President has referred publicly to the level of membership income and one can make educated guesses for electorate fundraising based on what it costs to run a local campaign every three years.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:22 am
I’m against all anonymous donations Pascal, I’m on record saying that a thousand times.
I always love election return day though, just as a reminder of who the Nats really answer to.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
We are talking about donations not income Mr Farrar. That is the subject of the thread.
[DPF: Bzzt most of the above income listed is all donations also. Wrong again]
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am
Why do you guys let Sonic and the rest of the communists frame the debate?, business donates to Labour and unions steal funds from their “members” to give to the Labour party in return for favours and seats in the house.
I am buggered if I am going to feel that I have to defend the fact that business donate to National or that they have done so anonymously in the past.
I only hope that after the next election the new National govt pass legislation that bans donations from unions, it only seems fair.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:35 am
Sonic: We are talking about donations not income Mr Farrar. That is the subject of the thread.
Hmmmmm
DPF:
Membership Donations 40,000 x $30 = $1.2 million
Electorate Fundraising $10,000 x 60 = $600,000
Direct Mail = $500,000
Corporate donations under $10k say 100 x $5,000 = $500,000
Donations over $10K = $700,000
All look like types of donations to me sonic……
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
I’m just waiting for the Labour spin doctors to show these figures as some sort of support for labour, seeing as Labour has received 1 mill to Nationals 700k.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 10:23 am
[DPF: The trouble is people assume that somehow the party does get to know, and it corrodes trust in parties as you then get hysteria about policies being for sale. Stopping large anonymous donations will remove the fuel for that fire]
The only people who assume National does that are Labourites. Right thinking New Zealanders have always trusted National and had that trust confirmed. Banning something because Labourites disapprove of it is not a good idea.
I say, keep anonymous donations, they’ve never done us any harm – in fact they have clearly helped the war against socialism!
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
“Steven Wong for $19,000 … runs a potato chip manufacturer and was a potential Labour candidate in 2002.”
So, let me get this right, in this age of govt promotion of healthy eating and Bluebird accused of exploiting and making children unhealthy by temping them into buying potato chips by offering trading cards, we have the Labour party enriching itself by indirectly benefiting from the profits of a potato chip manufacturer who gets those profits from exploiting children. So Labour is getting party funds from the exploitation of children.
Gee, if I was The Standard Blog and it were National instead of Labour that was receiving Mr Wong’s cash I’d be making this the number one topic.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 11:19 am
“But here is the big story. Despite spending all year railing against anonymous donations, and pledging they will stop them – they were at the same time accepting $150,000 from one anonymous donor and $50,000 from another. (and another $30,000 I missed earlier so that is $230,000)”
Not when you consider that National received about seven times that amount in anon donations/secret trusts during 2005.
In any case, if National’s not going to stop receiving anon donations until they’re banned, it would be tactically stupid for Labour to stop receiving them. An analogous issue is National’s harping on all the time about taxpayers money being spent on election campaigns, yet they’re only too happy to receive their leader’s budget money through parliamentary services every year, and use it to promote their party and MPs. Of course until it’s banned for all parties it would be tactically stupid for National to do otherwise.
So no moral high-ground here DPF – just day-to-day politics.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
“The only people who assume National does that are Labourites. Right thinking New Zealanders have always trusted National and had that trust confirmed. Banning something because Labourites disapprove of it is not a good idea.”
Yeah – who cares about transparency for right-wing parties. We all know it’s only politicians on the left that do bad things. When the right get in we should just suspend all checks and balances on their power and just trust them.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 11:26 am
Richard Hurst:
“Gee, if I was The Standard Blog and it were National instead of Labour that was receiving Mr Wong’s cash I’d be making this the number one topic.”
You know that in 2005 that would have come to just over 1% of National’s hollow-man budget? Really, it’s a bit of a non-story.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 11:33 am
So is the purpose of the HSC to raise parliamentary salaries so the left wing parties won’t be too worse of when they donate 700k to their own parties? I suppose thats one way of legally using taxpayer funds eh!
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 11:50 am
roger nome: Yeah – who cares about transparency for right-wing parties. We all know it’s only politicians on the left that do bad things. When the right get in we should just suspend all checks and balances on their power and just trust them.
Why? Because it’s mostly been the politicians on the left. But dear old myopic Philip John continues to endorse Labour’s theft of election funding whilst harping on about what he imagines National will do. More double standards from the usual crowd of bleaters.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 11:54 am
Yeah man, the bleating socialist overlord homo pinko brigade. Boo yaa sucks to you, Vladimir.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Interesting to see wealth backing the Maori Party. There is an interesting article by David Horowitz entitled “Intellectual Class Wars” (Google it yourself) that includes analysis of how the biggest money in the US goes to support of trendy socialist and multiculti causes. So there is actually something odd about the socialists in NZ being antagonistic to big money.
Vote:May 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Yeah – who cares about transparency for right-wing parties. We all know it’s only politicians on the left that do bad things. When the right get in we should just suspend all checks and balances on their power and just trust them.
Roger Nome, I challenge you to give me one example of a right wing party in New Zealand indulging in corrupt practices.
Vote: