Another secret donation
July 24th, 2008 at 6:55 am by David FarrarPhil Kitchin in the Dominion Post reveals another secret donation to NZ First – $25,000 from SIr Robert Jones in 2005 and $50,000 in 1993.
Neither of these donations has ever been declared.
The 2005 one went into The Spencer Trust, which is administed by Wayne Peters – Winston’s brother.
Now there are three issues here for NZ First – their brand, their hypocrisy and legal issues.
Brand
NZ First has portrayed itself as the party of the underdog fighting wealthy interests. But in the last few days we have learnt that NZ First and/or its leader has received donations from a foreign resident billionaire, a foreign resident family worth around $180 million and a local millionaire worth $400 million or so.
NZ First has purported to be a party funded by lots of $20 and $50 donations but seems to have more mega rich donors than anyone thought. What is the average NZ First supporter or MP thinking?
Hypocrisy
As detailed in this Dom Post story, Peters has railed against secret donations, against the use of trusts funds to collect donations etc.
It is becoming clear that NZ First has been engaging in the exact behaviour it has so criticised over the years. In fact its behaviour has been less transparent it seems than those it criticised.
Legal
Now it is (or was) legal for someone to donate to a trust and for the trust to then donate to a party. However the party has to declare the donation from the trust, and NZ First has never ever disclosed a single donation from the Spencer Trust. People go on about the Waitemata Trust – but at least people know that exists and how much it donates to National. Until today The Spencer Trust was unknown to almost everyone (I actually first heard about it and a link to NZ First last year), so this is a level of transparency which is rock bottom.
Now accounts are audited, so how come there are no donations recorded from the Spencer Trust to NZ First? Well according to the Kitchin article, it simply just pays bills on behalf of NZ First.
Sound a familiar method of operation? And all impossible for an auditor to detect.
However I suspect the legal position is that paying a bill on behalf of a party counts as an donation to the party, and should have been declared.
The Electoral Commission needs to decide if it has a role here. The time limit for prosecutions over the 2005 election return has passed, but the 2007 return might now be questioned if this behaviour is not a one off. If the allegations are correct and the Spencer Trust is paying bills on behalf of the party, then that is an issue to be investigated.
Finally in the interest of balance, we quote the denials given to the Dominion Post:
Mr Peters, who is in Singapore, would not comment yesterday. Responding later to written questions about Sir Robert’s donation going to the Spencer Trust, he would say only that the information was “not factual”.
Is he saying Sir Robert is mistaken?
Early this week The Dominion Post asked a spokesman for Mr Peters if a trust run by his brother had sometimes paid NZ First bills.
Through the spokesman, Mr Peters said: “That is a lie.”
And that is a clear cuit denial. So what does Sir Robert say:
When contacted yesterday, Sir Robert said he was making his own inquiries with NZ First officials and would not comment further at this stage.
Sir Robert is a straight shooter. I look forward to hearing his comments once he has made his inquiries.
Related posts:
- The secret $80,000 in 2007
- Sir Robert confirms undisclosed donations
- More Spencer Trust details
- An eye witness account of the $25,000 donation
July 24th, 2008 at 7:12 am
’tis very interesting isn’t it – Mr High and Mighty, defender of the low income grey underdog against the institutional bullyboys of gummint.
You reckon the checks and balances of power will investigate these breaches? Before the election? Or can Mum and Dad NZ smell bullshit all by themselves?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Sir Robert is a straight shooter. I look forward to hearing his comments once he has made his inquiries.
Sir Robert just revealed on National Radio that he’s given Peters around $150,000. He must be ‘in on it’.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 7:58 am
The 2005 one went into The Spencer Trust…
Do my eyes deceive me? Are we being subjected to National getting moralistic over a political party concealing its donors by running them through a trust? Aaargh! Irony overload!
NZ First … seems to have more mega rich donors than anyone thought.
Gaah! Must struggle against the irony overload! Personally, I expect NZ First’s mega rich donors amount to a tiny fraction of National’s. Tell you what – before peddling this line any further, how about National releases a list of who donated what, and we’ll compare it to NZ First. What? National doesn’t know who those donors are, because they’re “anonymous?” Tui has a billboard for that one somewhere, I’m sure.
[DPF: The usual bullshit from you. National declares that it gets donations from Trusts. Winston has not even declared his trusts exist. And Winston has railed against such trusts for 15 years - it is called hypocrisy]
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:01 am
Wait until we all see how much the unions pay to laboour.
And more to the point wait until the union members who pay 5 bucks a week out of their minimum wage see how much they support the rich pricks in the labour party.
Got a Tui billboard for that one champagne socialists?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:05 am
“Do my eyes deceive me? Are we being subjected to National getting moralistic over a political party concealing its donors by running them through a trust?”
Boy, silly me. Here I was, imagining that it was all about DECLARATION.
What is it about lefties? Do they get a special “Beginners Guide to Dissembly” together with their party subscription?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:06 am
Yes Reid, it is about morals and integrity – something Hulun and Mikhael have beaten out of the once proud labour party.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:15 am
From their behaviour over the years it doesn’t appear to me that it took too much beating to get it out either, expat.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:16 am
a quick flagellation with a rubber dildo would be all it took in the wymyns room, or so I’d imagine.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:17 am
psycho milt
Peters has crusaded against ‘secret donations from big business’ for the best part of two decades, and specifically attacked National’s use of trusts. Now it turns out he has also received money from big business, and at least one trust was involved. Unlike National’s trusts, there is not even a record of Winston’s one donating to his party.
That should push your irony-meter off the scale.
Incidentally, Labour has also received money through blind trusts in every recent election year. Their animosity to National on this point seems less a matter of principle than resentment at not being able to attract more donors themselves.
For what its worth, I would prefer much greater levels of transparency around donors. Labour had the opportunity to introduce this with the EFA, and declined. NZFirst, incidentally, voted for the EFA and didn’t try to improve the level of disclosure.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:23 am
This is all very well and I am sure 95% of New Zealanders think Peters is slime. But that critical 5%+ do not and it is the critical number that gives him representation. Sadly I do not think yet this will damage him beyond repair but it is getting close. I am confident he will not win Tauranga on these revelations BUT he might still scrape through that 5%..
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:26 am
Actually, Milt, I’m detecting severe anaemia caused by an irony deficiency at the sight of folks like you now defending secret donations from rich pricks and secret trusts… as long as it’s Winston, who — for the moment — is a useful Labour lapdog. I know that in Winston World it’s “lies” and “treason” to actually hold him to the same standards he’s been so loudly preaching to others for so long, but fuck ‘im.
I’d also remind you that both National and Labour supported extending the Register of Pecuniary Interests to all MPs. New Zealand First did not, and I think it’s becoming clearer and clearer why. I don’t think the register is perfect by any means — IMO, it has loopholes you could drive the Queen Mary through sideways without it touching the sides — but it’s better than nothing.
But there’s no tipping point where Peters gets a pass on either flouting the rules, trying to bully and intimidate anyone who has the gall to call him out, or flat out hypocrisy and (perhaps) deception.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:39 am
One of the USA’s more intelligent jurists was Louis Brandeis. He had this to say about government.
The government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that the end justifies the means — to declare that the government may commit crimes — would bring terrible retribution.
I think we are seeing individuals and groups of all political persuasions believing the laws do not apply to them. If Brandeis is correct then the retribution will be entertaining to watch and in some cases cannot come soon enough.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:40 am
Early this week The Dominion Post asked a spokesman for Mr Peters if a trust run by his brother had sometimes paid NZ First bills.
Through the spokesman, Mr Peters said: “That is a lie.”
Peters assertion could actually be true if – “The trust always paid NZ1 bills” Indeed it could be the main purpose of the trust, if so this is Hypocrisy of the highest order
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:42 am
Pique Oil:
Associate Justice Brandeis was also the man who famously wrote “Sunlight is the best disinfectant”. And that’s true even when the Winston-matic Sulphur-scented Fog Machine is cranked up to 11.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:46 am
Winston, the gift like the EFA, that keeps giving.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:51 am
Very, very interesting. Is this the start of Sir Robert’s campaign to punish the government and its lackies for enacting the EFA?
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/07/keeping-them-honest.html
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Actually, Milt, I’m detecting severe anaemia caused by an irony deficiency at the sight of folks like you now defending secret donations from rich pricks and secret trusts…
Not at all, Craig – I feel the same way about Winston First’s anonymizer trust donations as I do about National’s. If we’re talking sunlight being the best disinfectant, why not give both of them a good dose?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:02 am
Sir Bob’s comments this morning were quite interesting. He clearly wants to know what happened to the money, and equally important, insists it was Winnie himself who, “over several drinks”, badgered him for a donation to The Party, you know, the Leader who doesn’t get involved in fund raising. What was also interesting is that Sir Bob stated he had donated to all the parties except the Green and Maori Parties, who had never asked him.
This is clearly the end of the beginning of this adventure, when WP gets back on shore I’m sure we’ll see the beginning of the end.
If ever there was a time for a stand on principal to be made by the National Party, this is that time. The general population do not follow the intricacies of politics, they read the headlines, occasionally watch the news, and, as we get close to election day, may take note of the policies being proposed by people and parties looking for election. So far this year National have been astute in not releasing policy ahead of value. There are (I think) 23 portfolios in the “Shadow Cabinet”, and we are likely to get 42 days notice of this year’s election day. That gives the party PLENTY of time to present its platform, in ever increasing degrees of interest to Jo (eseph and sophene) voter and build momentum faster than the other parties can analyse and discredit. This would be a wise strategy and I hope they are following it.
Today, though Jo can’t see why it is that National just can’t bring themselves to attack Winston directly. It reeks of something, and Kiwis like to live in a clean green perception; ergo there’s something smelly about National. You can bet your bottom dollar that Labour are going to pile heat on that smell to ensure it rots a bit more, then pop it on the keep warm burner till the campaign gets going.
The time to talk about “the voters of new zealand tell us who is in parliament and so how a government must be formed” (JK on National Radio yesterday) is AFTER the election if the unthinkable must happen – not today when there is a moral, ethical, political and principal stand to be taken.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:06 am
psycho milt
And Labour’s secret trusts?
Do they get a pass because they’re Labour, or are the amounts beneath your consideration?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:14 am
Jones will be full of faux outrage if it is found that the donations he has made to Winston have found their way to the proprietors of such establishments as The Green Parrot – but I suspect he will be privately delighted by Winston’s “plight”!
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:20 am
Interesting Dave, but not especially likely. Do you think it would increase National’s poll rating to do so? Do you think it will harm their poll rating if they don’t? There isn’t evidence yet of either of those things, and Helen certainly hasn’t ruled out a deal with Winston after the election, let alone terminating the deal she already has with him. I’m not sure there is huge traction in her attempting to tar National with the “supporters of Winston” brush.
Having said that, if this does all blow up big time for Winston, it would be nice to have a free run at taunting Helen about it – without her having some return ammunition. Problem is, he is a former National MP and was in a coalition with National for a pretty long time. I’m afraid you can’t wash yourself clean of him that quickly.
I’m again wondering how the NZ First party feel about this. Money came in that was intended for the party, but that went to trusts controlled by and benefiting Winston instead. The party then had to pay for stuff (perhaps including tithes by MPs) that could otherwise have been paid for by donations. How do the MPs feel about Winston personally enriching himself at their expense?
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Dave “The time to talk about “the voters of new zealand tell us who is in parliament and so how a government must be formed” (JK on National Radio yesterday) is AFTER the election if the unthinkable must happen – not today when there is a moral, ethical, political and principal stand to be taken.”
Yes what I find most interesting about this line of thinking JK has followed is that when ACT annouced Roger Douglas was going to stand JK immediately ruled him out of a National govt. There was no “well the voters decide” then. But here we have someone caught if not acting illegally then certainly hypocritically and unethically and he is all too happy to leave open the possiblilty of working with him.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Craig,
sunlight is probably the most famous of his quotes but he also said
The most important political office is that of the private citizen.
It appears that everyone of the current political parties have forgotten this. winnie’s antics are a sign of the contempt that the electorate is held in by all of them, or at least that is how it appears.
Vote:Bob the boxer was instrumental in changing things in 84. twenty four years later he may be hearing the bell for round two.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Good question, Milt. And the best of British trying to get a straight answer out of Clark, Peters and everyone else who voted for the EFA.
Vote:July 24th, 2008 at 10:47 am
I heard, Peters say the other day, he returns money to donors that support policies diametrically opposed to Winston First’s policies.
Vote:Duncan Garner, where is that Bullshit Beeper?
July 24th, 2008 at 10:53 am
Am I the only one saddened to see the Electoral Commission is unlikely to investigate anything earlier than the now closed window for prosecutions?
Even if they can no longer prosecute or otherwise formally punish, it would be really good for the voters if a public investigation concluded whether he broke some rules once, or broke them multiple times at every election and year in between….
Vote: