Electoral Commission on NZ First
The Electoral Commission has done three things in response to NZ First’s 2007 donations return:
- It has found the party secretary did not break the law with the 2007 donations return, but is not releasing the full decision as it may compromise the police investigation. They EC point out carefully “The determination is in respect of the actions of the Party Secretary for New Zealand First only, as considered under Part 6 of the Electoral Act.” This suggests that others are under investigation by the Police.
- It has published amended returns for 2007 showing $80,000 of donations from the Spencer Trust. At this stage amended returns for 2005 and 2006 have not been published or possibly even received.
- It has published a letter from the NZ First Auditor, Nick Kosoof.
No (1) is not a big surprise. The party administrators tended to be kept ignorant of the Spencer Trust. Both the Party President and the Party Deputy Leader have said they were unaware the Spencer Trust even existed. So I guess the Party Secretary was also unaware of it.
The letter from Kosoof is interesting. He says:
We were advised that the sums totally $80,000 paid to the Spencer Trust were paid not for the credit of that trust but for the credit of the NZ First Party, and were received by the Spencer Trust as an agent for the NZ First Party. As each of the component parts of that sum were from different entities and each was $10,000 or under, they did not require to be returned under the Electoral Act 1993.
This raises many questions:
- Who advised Kosoof of this?
- Did he have access to the Spencer Trust accounts to verify that each component part was under $10,000?
- Did he seek any legal advice on the situation or just take the word of the organisation he audits?
I wonder if NZ First wll file amended returns for 2005 and 2006? I suspect they may choose not to, even though they have acknowledged the 2005 return was false. The EC doesn’t actually have the power to force them to do this.
October 24th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Everyone knows that auditors just look at the file and do what was done the previous year!
October 24th, 2008 at 9:19 am
gee..dpf..did the kingpins of the plot against peters thank you for all your anti-peters efforts/writings..?
..efforts above and beyond the call of duty..eh..?
..and all for nought..
..eh..?
..are you planning on formally apologising to peters..?
..for..y’know..!
..calling him every name under the sun..?
..and for stoking the witch-hunt-fires..?
..and how about that rodney..?
..eh..?..
..btw..i would like to note that whoar.co.nz was one of the few news outlets to smell a rat..from day one..
..and also questioned from day one the eye-watering gall/hypocrisy of hide/key..
..both up to their eyeballs in millions of dollars from slush-funds/secret donations..
..being all self-rightous/pious..against peters..
..over amounts that are small change compared to the rightwing/big business flows/sums (millions) of money given to national/act..
..eh..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
October 24th, 2008 at 9:23 am
Man, Catherine Ryan on National Radio is showing her true colours…
never knew she was such a strong NZF supporter!
Bloody partisan journalists! It’s a disgrace…
October 24th, 2008 at 10:15 am
The Electoral Commission with their rulings is starting to look more and more politically biased and less the impartial agency they are supposed to be.
October 24th, 2008 at 10:44 am
The auditor’s letter shows that it is possible to have a bob each way if you’re within Winston’s Reality Distortion Zone. No need to bother with the pesky business of inspecting actual records — just take the word of the client. Then, if events change, note that you were correct based on the information received at the time, but that you would still be correct now if events have changed as alleged!
Wonderland …
October 24th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
“O what a tangled web we weave
when once we practice to deceive….”
(Walter Scott?)
October 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I wonder if the auditor could write a letter showing the receipt or book balance encompassing $158,000 and its disbursement to sundry un-named charities.
October 24th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
When is the Auditer General going to get stuck into this? Or is it ouside his areas of responsibility?
By the way what has happened to Graeme Edgeler (is that name right) who used to provide informed legal comment on such matters.?
October 24th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Graeme now roks for the Electoral Commission so provides his legal commentary to them exclusively