Ben Thomas on Winston

Ben Thomas has an excellent column in NBR today. It is not online, but here are some key extracts:

Union leader and former Alliance president Matt McCarten told TV3’s Sunrise programme that journalists were asking the wrong questions: that Peters could be believed when he assured them New Zealand First had never received a donation from Glenn.

That still left open the possibility, McCarten suggested, that Peters had a “leader’s fund” operating separately from his party and its accounts.

Indeed. McCarten is right that the questions need to be more focused.

A leader’s fund is nothing particularly sophisticated or technical in itself. It could mean a trust is set up to handle deposits from donors – or cake stalls – or these days it may mean just an additional cheque suffix on a politician’s online banking account. Or it could be handled by a close confidante or employee of the leader, who would probably not hold an official position in the party.

Hmmn a close confidante or employee.

So the possible existence of a New Zealand First leader’s fund is one possible explanation for why Glenn seems sure he donated money to New Zealand First but why Peters denies it.

New Zealand First’s president Dail Jones was corrected by Peters in February about where some cash – “closer to $100,000 than $10,000” – had come from last year in the party’s accounts.

What is interesting is that as far as I know, Jones has never publicly recanted from his view.

The question of whether Glenn donated to the party directly (if at all) is not a trivial one. In its 2007 donations returns to the Electoral Commission the party did not disclose any donations over $10,000.

And filing a false return has very serious penalties.

But if a donation over $10,000 was received anonymously, and New Zealand First didn’t disclose that to the Electoral Commission, then it breached the Electoral Act (that act still covers donations disclosures for the 2007 year). That’s an offence punishable by a $100,000 fine.

And up to two years in jail if done knowingly.

NZ First claimed it could not file its donations return while the leader, Peters, was out of the country. Yet the return disclosed no donations over $10,000 – that is, it was empty. That would seem to be a fairly straightforward document to sign off and one that could be accounted for without consultation with Peters.

I can’t think of any other party that would have the Leader involved in what is merely a statutory return.

The Electoral Commission has not made a decision on New Zealand First’s late return.

No, but they have on every other party that had a late return. They all got let off because they had “reasonable excuses”. The lack of a decision on NZ First suggests they are awaiting further information to determine if their excuse was reasonable or not.

It’s a murky position. And the public and media’s best efforts to trust Peters are not helped by his continued lack of disclosure around the role Tauranga man Tommy Gear plays in New Zealand First.

Indeed.

He was later found to be a staff member of Peters‘ office, although not in the Parliamentary phone directory. He also shares the same address as Peters on the electoral roll.

So WInston officially resides with Mr Gear. Sounds like hs is both a close confidante and a employee.