Sir Robert confirms undisclosed donations
Well even though Winston has said it is all lies, Sir Robert went on to Radio NZ this morning to discuss his donations. Extracts from the NZPA story:
Sir Robert today confirmed to Radio New Zealand he made a $25,000 donation to the party for the last election (2005). He had now written to NZ First president Dail Jones after speculation that money he donated had not got to the party.
I believe a number of donors are now asking where their money went. Owen Glenn thought he donated to NZ First and it went into Winston’s legal expenses. Sir Robert thought he donated to NZ First and it went into The Spencer Trust – the second secret fund we have learnt of this week.
Sir Robert also said he had made large contributions to NZ First in the 1990s when the party was being established. “I’m not worried about the $25,000, that’s not a lot. I’m worried about the other $150,000 he took off me in the early days,” he said.
And these have never been disclosed. Now before the 1993 Electoral Act was amended in 1995 they might not have to have been. If they were paid into a Trust and the Trust donated to NZ First or paid bills on its behalf, then that should have been disclosed.
Sir Robert said he hated NZ First’s attacks on Asians but the last time he saw Mr Peters “a lot of drinking went on” and Sir Robert begrudgingly gave $25,000.
Note that Sir Robert has said explicitly Winston was directly soliciting the money – something he denies he ever does.
Sir Robert said the cheque was written out by one of his staff members to Spencer Trust — described by The Dominion Post as sometimes being used to pay NZ First bills.
There had been payments of $50,000 “here or there” to other parties, Sir Robert said. He would be concerned if donations to the party never reached the party.
Sir Robert has said he has not voted National since 1981 so unlikely to be National.
“I’ve never been approached by the Greens and Maori Party, I must confess,” Sir Robert said.
He did not like the thesis of the Maori Party and wouldn’t have given them money but asked if he would give to the Greens he said: “I probably would, but I don’t want to say that”.
Frog better get onto this!
Also interesting stuff on the money Brian Henry solicited:
In Parliament yesterday National MP Judith Collins, a lawyer, said Mr Henry could not run a trust account. “He is a barrister sole, and one of the things about barristers is they don’t have trust accounts,” she said during the general debate.
“They are not audited. They are not subject to Law Society rules about trust accounts and the reason is they don’t hold other people’s money.
“They simply render an account and it gets paid.” Ms Collins said she had been a lawyer for more than 20 years and had been a member of the Auckland District Law Society and the New Zealand Law Society.
“I have never once come across a situation where a barrister’s job is to ring up people in Monaco and ask them to pay $100,000 into a fees account,” she said.
“I have never once heard of it and I sat for years on the complaints committee of the Auckland District Law Society…not once did we ever hear anything about barristers ringing up trying to solicit money for their clients’ fees.”
It is indeed very unusual for barristers to be involved in the money side of things – that is meant to go all through the solicitor.
Now people may be interested in NZ First’s disclosed donations of over $10,000 since 1996:
1996 Peter McCardle $10,000
1996 Charles Sturt $12,500
2002 WestpacTrust $10,000
2002 Gold Times Sports $15,000
2003 Contact Energy $10,000
2004 Contact Energy $10,000
This is a very low level of disclosed donations. Every minor parties like the Alliance have disclosed far more than this. Now looking at this you would think they have not had any donors of over $10,000 since 2004. And in fact we know there have been significant donations of over $10,000 for the benefit of NZ First and Peters.
There are two issues with The Spencer Trust. The first is NZ First’s of trust funds to hide donor’s identity. This is perfectly legal but something he has railed against in public. So total hypocrisy.
The bigger issue is why there is no record of The Spencer Trust donating to NZ First. Because by not disclosing its relationship to NZ First, it removes the ability of the public to be critical of the use of the trust fund. You see people know National gets large donations from the Waitemata Trust. National then has scrutiny from the media and the public on those donations and their political image gets somewhat tarnished by the use of the Trusts (even though quite legal).
But what NZ First appears to have done is kept the existence of both the “legal fund trust” and the Spencer Trust a total secret, hence removing the ability of the media and the public to pass judgement on their practices. This is of course a lack of transparency that is worse than anything Peters has criticised other parties for.
And if the Spencer Trust has been paying bills on behalf of NZ First, then that could well be seen by electoral authorities as an effective donation which should be disclosed.
How many more secret trusts are out there?
UPDATE: Extracts from the transcript are after the break:
PRESENTER (SEAN PLUNKET): Further details been reported this morning about donations to New Zealand First. The Dominion Post newspaper says Sir Robert Jones gave $25,000 to the party but it is questioning where the money went. Well Sir Robert Jones ah, joins us on the line ah, now. Good morning to you.
SIR ROBERT JONES: Hello Sean.
PRESENTER: Ah, firstly, is $25,000…
JONES: First, first not firstly.
Ha I love it – he corrects his use of language.
PRESENTER: I just want to come back quickly ah, just a couple of quick points ah, on this $25,000 no, donation. This is back around 2005, as best you can remember.
JONES: Yes. It’s, it was for the last election yeah.
PRESENTER: And it was Mr Peters who approached you for the money.
JONES: Yes because…
PRESENTER: So there was no separation between the fundraising and Mr Peters.
JONES: No ah, but that’s probably not unreasonable, I mean I’m, I’ve just read this Dominion thing and I think they’re being a bit rich on the racing one. Winston’s always been a racing man. It bores me to tears and, and…
So very clear that Winston directly asked for the money, and then it was arranged to go into The Spencer Trust.
JONES: …to Dail Jones and said we’re not worried about the 25 grand, that’s not a lot, I’m worried about the other 150 he took off me in the early days. If that’s never been used for the party I think it’s a bit rich and so I’ll be interested to see what Dail…
And they have never disclosed a donation from Sir Robert, or indeed any donation of greater than $15,000.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:12 am
Stand back from the fan people.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:14 am
Now people may be interested in NZ First’s disclosed donations of over $10,000 since 1996: 1996 Charles Sturt $12,500
This is a joke, right?
Charles Sturt was the head of the Serious Fraud Office at that very time, and was being excoriated by Winston at and outside the Winebox inquiry, which was running then.
Surely there are not two of them?
[DPF: Yes there are two of them. Poor buggers. This one was actually a candidate in Rotorua I think for them]
July 24th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Judith Collins sums up the position regarding barristers and trust accounts succinctly. DPF asked a question about the ethics of Mr Henry’s actions. This is the answer.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:19 am
I saw the bit about Charles Sturt as well. Remember, however, that he and Mr Peters were at university together so go back a long way. It may be the case that the public statements made by an individual do not match the private reality.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:20 am
“I will not accept Baubles of office” – Yes you did
“I have not recieved funds from OG” – Yes you did
“I do not solicit donations” – Yes you did
“NZ1 – Keeping them honest” – No you didn’t
July 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
What ever did Bob Jones ever see in Winnie to justify this kind of largesse? Or did he suspect it would turn into a useful political “sting” one day?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
This from Helen Clark’s foreword to the Cabinet Manual Online
“The Cabinet Manual is an authoritative guide to central government decision making for Ministers, their offices, and those working within government.
Cabinet has approved the content of the Cabinet Manual. I urge all those working in government to use the new Cabinet Manual and follow the guidance it contains…”
Helen Clark
Prime Minister
And what exactly does the Cabinet Manual have to say in relation to gifts?
The Standing Orders require members of Parliament to disclose to the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests of Members of Parliament any gift accepted over a prescribed value, currently $500.
And on Ministerial Behaviour?
Ministers are expected to act lawfully and to behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards. Ultimately, Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
the VDS have approached this from the view that they accept wrongdoing, in the interest of transparency, if National are going to attack this, they should open up their books also.
This is akin to saying they have thrown a small concession to National on this, but one which will enable WInston to escape by demanding an internal enquiry, then everyone can go home happy.
Unless of course, National insist on complaining.
It’s a veiled threat. Which I predict, Keysey will capitulate to.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:26 am
And this also from the Cabinet Manual…
To avoid creating or appearing to create an obligation, gifts in cash or kind are not to be solicited or accepted from a commercial enterprise or any other organisation, either in New Zealand or overseas.
Ministers, as members of Parliament, may accept political party donations. The fact that the Minister is accepting the money on behalf of the party must be made clear, however, and the Minister must pass the money on as soon as possible.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
What do Winston Peters and [deleted by DPF] have in common?
[DPF: That goes too far. Demerits next time]
July 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Well, I always knew that Winston had a neckl like a jockey’s bollocks, but he’s gone for good this time, surely. I mean of all people to piss off, he duped Bob Jones. Go get him Bob, and bon appetit.
PS: Can we declare a republic and make Bob president for life? Not just for hoisting Winnie so far up by his own petard that he can see my house, but becuase he started his interview by insisting on the correct use of English from a broadcaster?
July 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am
James – hypocracy. HYPOCRACY everyone, just before the speculation gets out of hand!
I had not realised that Brian Henry was a barrister sole. Collins is quite correct that a barrister sole does not (CANNOT) run a trust account.
As for Winston Clark simply has to sack him. The alternative is to have a foreign minister who is a pathological liar. This scandal clearly has legs and the brown stuff IS going to stick to Labour. The only other alternative is an early election.
National’s position (which, pleasingly, is hardening) will be interesting. A brave (politically) but ethical call will be to refuse to work with Winston (or a last cab off the rank announcement) combined with pressure on Clark to sack him.
This could yet be two governments Winston has been sacked from.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
It means to be blown up by your own bomb. [/pedant]
July 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
News just in… The Cabinet Manual has now been amended with a clause reading “At all times Ministers must act in such a way as not to piss off Sir Bob.”
July 24th, 2008 at 11:42 am
It seems that donations to the Spencer Trust intended as donations to NZ First do not necessarily get spent directly on the NZ First campaign. If so, this would indeed be a potential legal problem. I presume that some people donating to the Waitemata Trust intend to donate to National’s campaign – how does that Trust ensure that this is taken into account – or are all donations to the trust automatically passed on to the party? If Winston believes he is following National Party practice, perhaps he is missing some important bits.
There doesn’t seem to have been discussion on Labour’s use of Trusts – do we know whether they have the same problem as Winston?
David, on a different topic, I heard the very end of a contribution you made to Radio yesterday afternoon – is it available from the web somewhere?
[DPF: Yes – at this link: http://www.radionz.co.nz/__data/assets/audio_item/0008/1677113/aft-20080723-1606-The_Panel_Part_1-wmbr.asx
July 24th, 2008 at 11:45 am
“…I believe a number of donors are now asking where their money went. Owen Glenn thought he donated to NZ First and it went into Winston’s legal expenses. Sir Robert thought he donated to NZ First and it went into The Spencer Trust – the second secret fund we have learnt of this week…”
There’s something wrong with that statement, if only in Sir Robert’s case, when compared to the facts you later outline. If Winston solicited the funds directly from Sir Robert, then Sir Robert knows which account they were paid to. Sir Robert is either being Sir Robert (I don’t know him personally, so how would I know?) or seeking his own agenda in this matter (just like everyone else). Owen glenn is certainly still subject to some apparently average human tendencies too, during the questioning over his donations, and may be doing the same thing as Sir Robert. Though more clumsily.
At present, everyone seems to be waiting for someone, anyone, to make the mortal first strike. Helen’s happy to look like a liar to avoid it. National are standing well back, smirking, without making any attempt to light the fuse. The media are carrying on with the uninteresting, chuck ‘n’ splatter, method. I’m left with the impression, not that it excuses him, that Winston’s donation issues are not the elephant in the room.
edit: I just don’t believe that apaprently sane and successful businessmen throw money away like that and shrug it off as an after dinner drink episode. Something smells. I know men richer than Sir Robert who would in no way throw $25,000 away without knowing exactly why.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:48 am
llew, I yield to none in my admiration of pedantry. And yes, I mangled a metaphor. But I don’t care; I am so happy that Winston the overbearing bully is about to get a proper shoeing from the school hard man.
July 24th, 2008 at 11:52 am
The question is: Will the Cabinet Manual be re-written and applied retrospectively?
Also, it is worth reminding viewers that NZ 1st’s second principle is:
“Open accountable Government…”
July 24th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Llew – I guess you could argue that the explosion was so great Winston was ‘hoisted’ to a great height.
Either way, as Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet: “For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar”. Indeed, it is great sport.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Looks like poor old Winnie has been to clever for his own good. I hope the collapse of this whole sorry lot can wait till the cows finish calving, will stock the fridge up in anticapation.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
*splutter* What kind of kicks does Bob get from donating to nearly every major political party under the sun?!
July 24th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
On the bright side, Winston’s brother is a prison officer, so at least he’ll be well looked after.
Now to my oft-held conspiracy. The future of NZ first could not be allowed to rest in Winnie’s hands. Winnie is clearly out of control. Dail had already put the boot in once – I think this and the revelations of late have the hall-marks of a nice little internal coup-d’etat about it.
The King is dead, long live the King and all that…
July 24th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Rex, is this the start of what you referred to in a comment on this blog. I don’t have the skill to link to the actual comment but it was along the lines of, when will there be an inquiry so people can spill the beans, and have some protection.
As one who probably knows, which industry, or industry leader will be next to speak up. Go on you can tell us, it won’t go any further !!!!
The problem with Bob Jones and his comments is the media is too scared of him, I hope he doesn’t get too bored too quickly.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
I was surprised that no one commented on my earlier post. I would be interested if Winston denies this. No doubt he will and Helen will believe. I have a few reasons for pushing this line.
One is to show that conflicts of interest do not have to be restricted to financial matters, although matters financial and homosexual lobbying are related. The NZ AIDS Foundation is a homosexual lobby group. They successfully lobbied Labour to stop testing immigrants for HIV. This queer friendly government funds this lobby group very generously. In return the homosexual community largely votes Labour and also donates a lot of time if not money to help Labour stay in power.
Another reason is to confirm what most already know about the way Winston fights in politics. I have discussed the matter of the number of closet homosexual in Labour with a number of MPs. No National MP has even done like Helen alleges and spread rumours about her likely sexual preference at least not to me.
Maybe Helen would like to consider how loyal Winston would be if he somehow manages to survive this and goes into coalition with National.
• Chuck Bird (228) +17 Says:
July 21st, 2008 at 11:59 am
I wonder if Helen would be so keen to stick up for Winston if she knew while I was a member of NZF some years ago I raised the issue of Helen’s marriage and related matters and Winston volunteered to me the rumour that Peter Davis edited a gay magazine while at university.
I have heard this before. Even if this was true it would not necessarily prove that Davis was a homosexual. However, that is not my point. My point is to further demonstrate that he has no scruples. Morons like Philu will no doubt say the same about me. However, there is a difference.
The difference is that when I dish dirt on someone I do it up front. I would not anonymously dish dirt on someone one day and have a drink with them the next.
I have known Winston since before he went into politics. It is very sad to see how he has turned out. Like a lot of people I thought he had a lot of principle. Sadly for him he has lot the respect of many thousands of people who once voted him.
Winston with all due respect I suggest you take your own advice and resign.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/07/the_correct_way_to_do_it.html#comments
July 24th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
What a shitstorm Condoleeza Rice is going to walk into at the weekend!! I almost hope that someone in the media rarks Peters up and causes him to lose his rag in front of her. It wouldn’t be a good look for New Zealand, but it would be the ultimate indignity for Peters.
July 24th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
hmm there is a lack of leftist activity on here today… maybe this “mini scandal” is a big deal
July 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Inventory, I doubt that Winston would lose his rag with Rice there. Too much of a ladies man – it’s automatic for him to put on the schmooze act.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Isn’t it funny how Dail Jones came out of nowhere last February and let slip about ‘$100,000′ and had Winston stamping the fire out real quick?Then isn’t it funny that the ‘$100,000′ re-emerged courtesy of a Glenn email just last week? And isn’t it funny, now tht Winston is out of the country another death-blow against Winston has been administered by Sir Bob today? Winston has been ‘out of control’ for a while, and his party m,ay sink or swim according to him. But what if Winston were out of teh equation? Would the Party survivie? When do you stage a coup? When the leader is sat behind his desk, or do you wait until he is out of the country? are we witnessing the political assassination of WInston Peters, and possibly the collapse of the ‘Labour lead Government’?
Lee – MWT
July 24th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Don’t bet on it PaulL – all it would take would be for Audrey Young to ask him if he was prepared to apologise to the Herald, the Dominion-Post, Radio NZ, TVNZ, 3News and herself, and I reckon it would be all on for young and old – and Condi!!
July 24th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
On dear Helen/Winston what an Anus Horiblis 2008 is turning into.
July 24th, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Dime “hmm there is a lack of leftist activity on here today… maybe this “mini scandal” is a big deal”
Nah, more likely that they are working out the spin to turn this into an attack on the Nats. Just wait a few hours and I’m sure it will be rolled out. The labour lapblogs are already starting to froth!
July 24th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
“On dear Helen/Winston what an Anus Horiblis 2008 is turning into”
LOL freethinker – but I think you meant “annus” – or was it a freudian slip?
July 24th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
this matter demands a Commission of Inquiry by 3 Law Lords from the Judical Committee of the Privy Council. The NZ Judicary must be kept well away given they are tainted by their past associations.
the Commission must have TORs that allow for them to sub poena any witness who must answer question on oath and not be allowed to remain silent.
It must also have unlimited power of discovery to ensure it has all the documents that realte to the matter.
Those who truly beliveve in democracy and good governance will put aside their party affiliations as being subordinate to the bigger picture.
IMHO we are facing a governance crisis like no otehr this country has ever faced. It is a culmination of two decades of worsening governance and no party can claim to be innocent until that have been proved to be so.
What we have had is the glib deceiving the trusting citizens and now the party must be deemed to be over for them.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
David Farrar thinks it is interesting that NZF have only disclosed six donations of $10,000 or more since 2004.
The irony here is that NZF’s knowledge of the law is so poor that they don’t appear to realise that donations of $10,000 are not even required to be disclosed. What is required to be disclosed is donations in excess of $10,000.
If NZF knew the law properly they would have disclosed only two of those six donations i.e. Gold Times Sports and Charles Sturt.
July 24th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
I’m just wondering. If Jones wanted to make sure that his donation went to the party, why didn’t he insist on donating to the party rather than a laundering trust fund? If the money was used in some other way, I’d be happy to tell Jones to his face, “tough bikkies”.
[DPF: Jones said he got a staffer to write the cheque and do the details with NZ First. Did you not listen to the interview?]
July 24th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
It does seem odd that NZ First only received six donations since 2004 all of the amount of $10,000 or a little more yet Winston received at least $100,000 from Glen and maybe $150,000 from Jones seemingly for Winston’s benefit alone.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
IV2 – No freudian slip – 2008 is turning into an arsehole of a year for Helen and Peters too – just what they deserve.
July 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
GD – Yes an independant enquiry is needed – perhaps a Truth & Retribution commission a la Mandela. IV2 no freudian slip this time either – retribution is what I seek from these scumbags.