Owen Glenn did donate to NZ First
There is an explosive story in the NZ Herald, with confirmation directly from Own Glenn that he did donate to NZ First – despite Winston Peters denying it, and NZ First filing a donations return which said it received no donation over $10,000.
There must be an inquiry into this. The e-mail from Owen Glenn to his PR agent is prima facae evidence of a serious breach of the Electoral Act and Electoral Finance Act. This has to be investigated to determine the true facts. If the Electoral Commission does not have the powers to investigate, then it should be referred to the Police who do. Arguably the involvement of MPs could make it an issue for the Serious Fraud Office.
The authorities should demand copies of financial records for NZ First, to determine whether any laws have broken. They should also interview Mr Glenn, his PR agent and key NZ First officials.
Other political leaders should insist this matter be investigated. Helen Clark and John Key need to put aside their desire to keep WInston happy in case they need him post-election and call for the facts to be fully investigated by a competent authority. All of Helen Clark’s calls for transparency in political funding will be hollow and hypocriticial if she refuses to comment or call for action on this.
Now having said that it must be investigated, it is possible no laws have been broken. Let us look firstly at what we do know:
- Owen Glenn has donated to NZ First
- NZ First has filed a return saying that they received no donation over $10,000 in 2007
- Owen Glenn has sought the role of Honorary Consul to Monaco, and has met Winston Peters to discuss this
- The then NZ First President Dail Jones say they received a donation in December 2006 which was between $10,000 and $100,000 – and more at the upper end
Now is it possible these can all be reconciled? Possibly – but with difficulty.
First of all it is in theory possible that Owen Glenn did donate but donated less than $10,000, thus not needing to be disclosed.
Secondly it is possible he donated up to $20,000 – $10,000 in 2006 and $10,000 in 2007.
Thirdly it is possible his donation was treated as an interest free loan. The interest waived would be under the $10,000 donation threshold.
I have long suspected scenario three. However for it to be a loan not a donation there would need to be documents supporting this and dated at the time the money was paid. I am unsure you can retrospectively convert a donation to a loan after publicity about it leaks out. Also the e-mail from Glenn talks about donating or giving money – not loaning it.
NZ First may well have an explanation for the conflicting statements. But it will have to do better than Winston holding up a “No” sign at a press conference. The e-mail from Glenn is primae facae evidence of a breach of the Electoral Finance Act and it can’t be ignored.
I also refer people to the NZ Herald article from 29 February:
Asked if he was saying he had never received one dollar from Owen Glenn or any associate of Mr Glenn, he hauls a sign out from under his table.
“NO”, it read.
“Got that?” Mr Peters asked. “N-O. To every one of the allegations you have made.”
The word “No” made frequent appearances. Every now and then a variation was given. A question of whether NZ First ever asked for money from Mr Glenn drew an “Oh, get lost”.
And also:
Q: Has [Glenn] ever offered you money?
A: “No.”
Have you ever asked for it?
“Oh, get lost, Barry.”
Have you ever asked for it?
“We don’t go and ask anybody for money. That’s a fact.”
Has he ever loaned you money?
“In those two nos you get a third no if you put your mind to it.”
So Winston said Owen Glenn never offered money and they never asked for it yet Owen Glenn says he did give money. And Winston also appears to have ruled out a loan.