I believe Winston
Winston says that donations by wealthy racing industry families did not affect NZ First’s racing policy.
I actually believe him on this.
I generally have a firm view that money follows policies, not policies follow money. Unions donate money to Labour because they like their policies, Labour doesn’t design policies just to attract donations from unions.
But here is Winston’s problem. He has spent over 15 years alleging that policies do follow money. That MPs are venal and corrupt and will sell favours to donors.
So if people see something wrong with the Velas donating to NZ First, it is because of the climate that Winston and others have created.
Take National’s ACC policy. Now National introduced private competition to ACC in 1998, and had it as policy in 2002 and 2005 and again in 2008. National is a party which for 50 years has generally favoured more private sector involvement.
So I see nothing sinister in National’s ACC policy. But Winston and his mates allege (without foundation) that the policy was purchased by the insurance industry through alleged donations to National.
The mythical $1 million donation would seem an incredible waste of money to “buy” a policy considering National has had the same policy for over a decade.
So Winston is a victim of his own scandal-mongering. He can’t get away with a stance that other parties sell their policies to large secret donors, but he does not.
Winston says the donations are all legal. Yes indeed they appear to be. However it is apparent that arrangements were made to allow one family to donate in excess of the disclosure limit through (legally) routing it through different people and companies. Just as National has legally routed donations through its former Trusts. Perfectly legal, but designed to avoid disclosure of large donors.
So I do believe Winston in relation to the Velas. He has not (from evidence to date) broken any law and I don’t think he exchanged policies for donations.
But the reason people think that the donations may have influenced his policy, is beacuse Winston keeps insisting that is what parties and politicians do – sell their policies to donors. It is a classic case of tainted by your own rhetoric.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:51 am
I am surprised that we actually have a Minister of Racing. It is such a minor part of NZ’s economy and its society. It doesn’t feel like a part of the economy where there is a public interest in subsidising, protecting, or regulating it. But, because of the links to the gambling industry, it seems almost tailor made to attract dodgy political donations.
So why not scrap the portfolio? Any legitimate government issues around racing, such as animal welfare, can be looked after by whatever agency is responsible for veterinary matters.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:55 am
I agree but as I have said elsewhere there is a certain satisfaction in seeing sanctimonious pricks like Winston hoisted on their own petards.
David P – I am inclined to agree with you but I do not know a great deal about racing. That said, it does seem to be a reasonably large business if you include betting?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:02 am
Minister of Racing is one of the baubles of office that Sideshow Pete had thrust upon him, poor chap.
I want to see Key show some spine and say that a vote for NZ First is going to be one vote less for a National led government because they won’t deal with him. It’s really dissapointing to hear Key dodging this and claim that it is up to the voters who they are in coalition with. What’s wrong with showing some leadership on this and just saying no to Sideshow Pete?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:06 am
HC says she has to accept WP’s word as han honourable member on what he knew about these donations. But I thought that only applied to statements made in the House? She doesn’t have to accept Key’s word on things he says outside the house, only if he states them in the House, so why this new convention?
So why is she making this excuse for WP when he has not made any statements about these funding issues in Parliament? Sounds like she is trying to find excuses not to question him.
Perhaps one of the procedural junkies can advise.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
“I believe Winston”……..thousands wouldn’t……..
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:14 am
>That said, it does seem to be a reasonably large business if you include betting?
I’m pissed off at the idea that EVERY sector of the economy needs a minister and a government agency to oversee it. And that the minister needs to turn up and open some sector-based annual conference like some patron who needs to be listened to on the off chance he should dispense a few favours that’ll make up for lack of enterprise or efficiency.
The state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that we have a framework of contract law and of trading standards. Those laws can be applied to just about any area of commercial activity. So why the need to interfere with and “support” individual sectors? Does anyone really think that Peters has some expertise to apply to racing that the people who have worked their whole lives in the racing industry don’t have?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:28 am
The claims being leveled are going to work really badly against the whole funding institutions supporting politics unless the capacity for a Minister, MP or party are able to work without knowing where their funds come from.
For example, someone put miscellaneous money into my Internet account the other day as I have requested people to do to fund my challenge. Yet someone else had recently opened this account in order to meet my work and publishing needs with $100. Immediatly there was a conflict of interest in the time I had and the initial investment took second place to the general work. Should it have? How can an individual operate with impartially where they are dependent as much on their existance as they are dependent on being fair. The Family Court is another example. We could close down the Family Court in any matter that involves the child, giving the equivalent funding to the institution most appropriate to serve the best interersts of the child CYFS. Instead we continue to demand that orders help children more than encouraging, assisting and developing the love of their natural parents. Instead we collapse the natural and biological family because our new policies can no longer sustain the older or ancient codes.
Law is built on soul after soul after soul of knowledge yet we would bastardise its value and truth on a simple want or whim. Richard Prebble on Morning Report has set the standard under which Winston must perform. If Winston cannot prove he has obeyed traditional law then he is unlikely to survive politically. If he cannot survive then his only defence is to plead as I have suggested. He was right not to know who was giving him money because if he knew then he would bring about his own corruption. If this is his eventual defence, then he had better stop crowing pretty quick because he’s been digging a deeper hole. Capitaslising the two characters of NO was very profound. If he comes out of this with the top argument on object and for some reason Tauranga should come under severe electoral pressure, then it would be worth the public’s campaign to keep the patry’s 5%. That’s a very big IF!!
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:33 am
“……..thousands wouldn’t……..”
according to the Herald poll the figure is 84% of NZ
http://dynamic.nzherald.co.nz/poll/pub/polls/index.cfm?action=results&pollid=47B6402F-019D-F4C9-2655F916ABC7E76F
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:34 am
oh look..!..
..dpf has suddenly realised that what winston does..national does all the time..
“..Winston says the donations are all legal. Yes indeed they appear to be. However it is apparent that arrangements were made to allow one family to donate in excess of the disclosure limit through (legally) routing it through different people and companies.
Just as National has legally routed donations through its former Trusts. Perfectly legal, but designed to avoid disclosure of large donors..”
(um..!..why that fear of exposure..?..dpf..?
and no..!..of course not..!
how could you possibly feel that we would possibly feel that political parties are influenced in any way by large donors/donations..?
..especially secret ones..!
..what a silly idea..!..eh..?
b.t.w..what time did you say the tooth-fairy was arriving..?
(and..um..!reason number 53 to ban/end anonymous/secret donations to political parties..eh..?..)
y’see dpf..call us cynical..but i think most of us would like ‘transperancy’..
..in who..is paying what..to which political party..
..and..to what ‘ends’..?..eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:37 am
Except unlike Labour or National, WinstonFirst does not get to set policy.
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:50 am
Did we even have a Minister of Racing before this parliament?
July 23rd, 2008 at 10:51 am
What Winston has to offer is influence not policy, he gets donations from people who like his influence.
And isn’t it appropriate that the racing lobby adopted Winston, whoever wins Winston always places.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:03 am
Racing is a billion dollar industry. Compared to say Lotto or Pokies, there is a significant economic and social infrastructure that relies on racing. Breeding, training, administration, support, race day roles etc all on top of the significant gambling industry.
Certainly racing has challenges particularly the lost younger generations.
I’m not sure when racing had its first Minister of Racing but it goes back many years.
Winston by many in the racing industry is perceived to walk on water for the tax benefits he gained racing. Having said that, most of these “benefits” were simply to ensure a level playing field with other forms of gambling which had tax advantages over racing.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:06 am
perhaps the most famous minister of racing..came from queensland..
..his name was russ hinze (spelling is wrong)….’big russ’..
..he was the minister of racing in bejelke-petersons institutionally-corrupt govt..
..big russ was the ‘go to ‘ guy..
..he was the bag-man/fixer…who you paid off..
it was an open joke that he was the minister for racing..an industry at that time notorious for race-fixing/nobbling/gangsters/wide-boys etc..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:11 am
“..Winston by many in the racing industry is perceived to walk on water for the tax benefits he gained racing..”
yeah..!..a drop in their tax rates from 20% to 4%…!
..who wouldn’t be ‘happy’..?
my question/argument is..ok..a level playing field..
..bring them all up to 20%..
..then nobody feels hard done by/left out..
..increasing the tax-take on ’sin’ industries like gambling…
..is a no-brainer..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
Racing is not a sin industry. Gambling may be.
The gambling in racing is largely used to fund stakes from which many thousands of people earn their living. Take the racing industry down and you will cut a swathe through towns like Matamata, Cambridge and many many others.
However, racing can still function without gambling – lotto, pokies and casinos can’t.
Racing doesn’t deserve any particular favours – indeed, I’m obviously involved in the industry and the industry has a lot to do to improve the way it is perceived and to show its true worth.
Their are plenty of other minority ministries but to single out racing given its economic input to NZ is nothing short of snobbery and naievety.
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:35 am
daveski are you saying that racing could function at the current high standard of breeding, trainers, professional jockies etc without gambling? Would seem to me that it could end up a hobby more than anything…?
July 23rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
Stephen – you are right and I had intended to make that point clearer in my reply.
The point I was making was that racing has a point beyond straight gambling which the other forms of gambling don’t.
Obviously I am biased but racing is more than gambling although the gambling is a key part of generating the stakes. Interestingly, that’s one of the reasons for the state control of gambling so that a percentage of the turnover is taken to fund the industry.
All this gambling is making things look garbled!
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:08 pm
> ..increasing the tax-take on ’sin’ industries like gambling
It’s only a sin if you get caught and are Catholic.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:16 pm
hey daveski..they functioned quite successfully on 20% untill winstons’ largesse..eh..?
..i’m sure the poor darlings could manage again..
and hey..!..casinos aren’t just casinos’..eh..?
your arguments are fatuous in the extreme..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Phil – criticisms with no substance is your way. The industry was increasingly struggling due to a number of factors including HSE costs, greater competition, higher stakes in Oz etc. so you’ve clearly demonstrated your knowledge of these issues.
Racing started without gambling and would continue without it although the damage to the industry and job losses would be extreme. Casinos would die out.
July 23rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Since when did casinos need racing?
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:08 pm
That might be true DPF but for Gods sake dont go spreading the story to the great unwashed. They can only understand short sound bites like.
WINSTON TAKES CASH FROM WELL KNOWN RACING FAMILY.
FAMOUS RACING FAMILY RORTS SYSTEM DONATES TO WINSTON
CLARK SANCTIONS ELECTORAL DONATION RORT
CLARK PROTECTS WINSTON FROM SCANDAL
Please do not complicate things for them. The trick is to keep it punchy and above all keep it going. Well of the RIGHT must ensure this story keeps getting told all theway to election day. the aims gotta be to peel off Winnies fringe supporters to endure NZ1 doesnt make it back to the House.
this should be the matra of the right and left wing supporters at this site.
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“I generally have a firm view that money follows policies, not policies follow money. Unions donate money to Labour because they like their policies, Labour doesn’t design policies just to attract donations from unions”
But no reasons given for this? A weak, unsupported argument. In any case, democracy shouldn’t be about whoever the rich likes most, getting the most publicity/coverage. That’s a plutocratic perversion of democracy – which is what the National Party is all about.
[DPF: I think Roger Nome just argued that Labour does in fact sell policies to wealthy unions and NZ First does sell policy to its secret donors. He is entitled to that view]
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Daveski largely has it right – Philu is way off as usual.
A potted history of gambling in NZ. The TAB was set up in 1951 by the govt to rein in offcourse bookmakers operating in pubs etc, sponging off racing for an untaxed income while not contributing a cent to running racing. There was no pokie machine or Casino around. Lotto didn’t come in until 1987 – prior to that there was Golden Kiwi, Art Union (?).
The point is that the govt deemed race betting to be a social evil and in 1951 set up a govt agency (TAB) to regulate the betting, pay a dividend back to the clubs for the racing. For 35 years the TAB had the gambling market to itself and paid a 100% dividend on betting earnings to racing clubs to fund race stakes.
The govt duly taxed the TAB 20% on gross profit (not net as most business pays tax). This was extortionate, but given the monopoly status not terribly unfair. However, when the govt changed the rules of gambling in NZ – by allowing Lotto, then Gaming Machines into every pub corner and finally Casinos – they never changed the taxation rate for the TAB profits to recognise the changed landscape. For example, in 1978, in real terms, the TAB customers spent $480m. Now it is more like $270m. But Lotto customers now spend more than Racing ($330m) and Casinos and Gaming Machines an obscene $1.4 billion. The Racing scene was being killed by lack of real growth because unfettered competition was being allowed into NZ, whilst the racing industry was handicapped with 1951 style regulations.
All this changed come 2003, when the Gambling Act put a cap on machines growth and stopped new Casinos. Racing can now compete again, but has lost a lot of ground.
Daveski is correct that Racing would go on without betting profits – it would have to shrink , but the reality is that the betting profits don’t pay for it now anyway. I estimate it costs about $170-$200m to run the animals a year – this is what the owners put in. They get $100m back in stakes – higher than it was two years ago thanks to tax relief. Many of these people are ordinary NZers – not just rich pricks. They are putting in $70m-$100m into their hobby already. They do it for fun and breeding reasons. What do the Casinos in NZ support?
July 23rd, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Godsmacked !!!!
Isnt this exactly what Winston has done- He didn’t agree with what the voters threw at him in Tauranga and took on Clarkson and then by a plutocratic perversion of democracy got Owen Glenns money to fight the case and just like the Labour Party by a plutocratic perversion of democracy stole taxpayers money for the pledgecard.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:01 pm
David Farrar makes the point, and the very important point that Winston Peters and New Zealand First have done nothing legally wrong by apparently accepting multiple cheques for $10,000 (or slightly less) from related parties to the Vela family and then not disclosing these on their annual donation return.
Each separate company or individual is a separate legal entity and is subject to its own separate $10,000 limit.
If New Zealand First did for example receive in 2003, say, five separate cheques for $10,000 each from separate legal entities there was no requirement under the old Electoral Act to disclose these. (Provided of course that was the total donation from that legal entity for that year).
What is very important to understand is that the exact same rules apply under the new Electoral Finance Act.
It will be perfectly legal for New Zealand First (or Labour or any other political party) to receive $50,000, $100,000 or even $200,000 or more in this way from the Vela family and its related interests in 2008 without it having to be disclosed.
This is exactly what the Electoral Finance Act provides.
Accordingly, it should now be patently clear to everyone that the Electoral Finance Act has absolutely nothing to do with increasing transparency of donations to political parties – in fact it does the exact opposite.
The EFA is about one thing only. It is about restricting our rights to speak out and to campaign against any political party or candidate (and in particular no doubt to restrict our rights to campaign against the political parties that passed the law – Labour, NZ First and The Greens).
Those restrictions go far beyond what both the Human Rights Commission and the Electoral Commission considered reasonable. The HRC said those restrictions should apply for no more than three months prior to the election. – Instead Labour, The Greens and NZ First ignored our HRC and imposed the law for the full election year. Similarly the spending limit on third parties was set at just $120,000, when both the HRC and the Electoral Commission said it should be set at $250-300,000.
Never before in the history of our democracy have political parties come together in such a unilateral way to pass a law in this way.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Who remembers this Minister of Racing, from another country and another era?
Certain similarities spring to mind.
Anyway, why not get all those insidious gaming machines out of the pubs. That would give a far bigger boost to the racing industry than the tax breaks and stake money gifted to them by Peters.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Thanks Dilbertian (my patron saint!)
I was obviously aware of the key points but the facts spelt out dispassionately are more persuasive than a biased viewpoint from someone involved in the industry – or at least club administration.
The industry itself has major issues – how to innovate and change without losing its heritage. The major problem as I see it is the people lost to racing through racing club failing to acknowledge the changing landscape and the additional challenges from other forms of entertainment and gambling that often had unfair advantages.
Back to the topic – ignore at your peril the view that Winston is the saviour of racing for what he is viewed to have achieved. I wouldn’t underestimate the significance of racing to the possibility of NZF getting to the 5%.
Having said that, I’ve met Lindsay Tisch and hope he is the next Minister of Racing
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Toad – good point although irony or ironies the pokie trusts are one of the biggest sponsors of racing if not the single biggest source of funding.
What I like about Tisch is that his appointment would legitimise it as a proper industry rather than a lightweight, ceremonial role.
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:27 pm
As davidp said at 10:14 am – why does ANY sector of the economy need a Minister daveski?
July 23rd, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Stephen – Where do you draw the line?
Trying to be objective, you’d have to look at areas where there is some strategic value to NZ and I’d happily argue that racing does that. I agree there is a perception about racing’s value that needs to be changed in in the club I’m involved with that’s about increased engagement with the local community.
It’s a valid question and I don’t have a compelling answer to the question why ANY section of the economy needs a minister – which is not the same as saying there shouldn’t be a Minister of Racing (who shouldn’t be Winnie!)
July 23rd, 2008 at 4:00 pm
In terms of an advocacy role (and this seems to be what this particular Minister has done, don’t know if it’s par for the course), I don’t think there is ANY role for a minister for any industry, it’s plainly needless, harmful and distorting meddling that oh also presents an incentive for people to look for favours, as well as perhaps for the Minister to act in a way that might open up a post for life after politics – Paul East (former Nat) is Chairman of the Charity Gaming Commission, I think (that is purely an example of a potential post, not an accusation or insinuation).
Your definition of ’strategic’ so far seems to be ‘it makes money’ and ‘communities depend on it’ – but that’s hardly a unique feature of the racing industry. I suspect you see it differently.
July 23rd, 2008 at 5:08 pm
A cautionary fish tail ..
Once upon a time in Aotearoa, a provincial person thought they knew everything when they arrived in Port Nicholson and and they wanted to help an extractive industry fund some research on politicians so that this very fluid industry could have an advantage when they were dealing with politicians – nothing bad, just a very good database of information on the background of politicians so that this particular industry wasn’t all at sea when it had to sit down and shoot the breeze with the politicians.
Imagine , their surprise when they approached one of the captains of this particular industry and told him of the “plan”. He smiled his very big smile which was very big cos he was a very big man, and he said, “yes I will give you the money, I think that that is a very good plan.”
they replied
“great I can find out about people like ……….. and how he feels issues pescatorial” … or something very similar.
He said “Dont worry about ………… – “I own him and I pay someone who is in his office. ”
then he told of how he had always spent his money wisely to ensure it had the greatest impact.
It might have ended up being about speedy quadrapeds but it started off being a very fishy tail. And for a while its was very much about dublin bay prawns.
but the person has never forgotten that day – nor what was said.
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Sorry guys. You may like horses and be all racing mad, but I’m not at all convinced that it deserves special attention in our economy. I personally wouldn’t be overly upset if the gambling bit of it died out and it became a hobby. It doesn’t really add any value at all to anyone, beyond being entertainment. And I’m not sure why we are suddenly into subsidising entertainment (other than, of course, rugby, orchestras, some plays, NZ on Air…..maybe my argument isn’t so sound after all).
But anyway, I’d be quite happy to have no Minister of Racing (buggered if I can see how it would impact anyone other than one less bauble and one less Ministerial office), and also get rid of a bunch of other Ministries. I’m hoping John Key might do so. A full list of govt agencies is here http://newzealand.govt.nz/directory – I’d suggest a start with ones to remove are:
Air NZ
Children’s Commissioner
Drug Free Sport NZ
Families Commission
Fish and Game NZ
Gambling Commission
Genesis Power