Have Green local candidates declared their donations

January 14th, 2014 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

WCC Watch blogs:

During the campaign it was reasonably well known that the Green Party had given somewhere in the region of $5,000 to all of their candidates in the election – there were a few other candidates who were pretty jealous of the fact, particularly after people like David Lee started bragging about it.

Good on Sarah Free for doing the legal thing and declaring a total of eight donations from the Green Party to a combined total of $4880.14 (one of the individual donations – $1916.46 was above the donation threshold on its own!)

However, that then leaves us with a very interesting question – what about the other candidates? David Lee and Iona Pannett both filed in donations returns without mentioning their Green Party donations. Did they not get any, or did they file a false return?

Very good questions.

Both of the Green regional council candidates declared large donations from their head office, with Sue Kedgeley getting $4657 and Paul Bruce getting $4393. It is really starting to look like Lee and Pannett have filed false returns.

If the returns are false, then they could face the same charges as John Banks is.

Tags: , ,

26 Responses to “Have Green local candidates declared their donations”

  1. Joanne (177 comments) says:

    If so, Lee and Pannett should face the same scrutiny as John Banks but the difference is Krim Dotcom did not do the donating and the Greens think they are holier than thou.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. burt (7,428 comments) says:

    If the returns are false, then they could face the same charges as John Banks is.

    I doubt it – It won’t be in the public interest – Move on.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. mudrunner (92 comments) says:

    Not “could face the same charges as John Banks”

    read “should face…”

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Ryan Sproull (7,360 comments) says:

    Ah, for fuck’s sake.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. anonymouse (705 comments) says:

    look at the weaselly explanation from Iona pannett

    It is incorrect to say that the Green Party gave money to “all” their candidates. Councillor Lee and myself did not receive any donations from the Green Party. Our respective returns of election expenses are therefore correct.

    Some of the expenditure by the Green Party on behalf of candidates’ campaigns were loans, which are not required to be recorded under the Local Electoral Act, only donations are.

    Cr Lee and I took our responsibility to file accurate returns seriously to meet our legal obligations and these obligations have been met in full.

    The Greens attempt to hold themselves up as bastions of virtue,
    the disregard for the spirit of the law being displayed here is fairly staggering,
    someone might want to ask Russel or Meteria if they condone such actions

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Pete George (23,814 comments) says:

    It’s possible the Green Party gave some candidates similar amounts of donations and only gave loans to other candidates but it sounds very odd.

    Especially if Lee bragging about getting donations is true.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,704 comments) says:

    Of course, as time goes by, those loans will be written off as ‘uncollectable.’ That’s how whatsisface got away with tens of millions from Bridgecorp.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. burt (7,428 comments) says:

    When will some political party actually have the balls to clean this shit up when in government ? They all talk tough in opposition then … do nothing.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Russell just printed the money!

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    It was a donation till they got caught cheating…now its a loan that will never get called in, be interesting to see the backdated paperwork and meeting minutes.
    Cunts.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. burt (7,428 comments) says:

    In the next breaking news from the Green Party ….

    Other were doing it too…. It’s not fair to just prosecute us… It’s the way we have always done it…

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. igm (1,413 comments) says:

    Where is this in Fairfax, APN, radio or Tv? I suppose Campbell will have it on tonight . . . Yeh right!

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. bc (1,395 comments) says:

    What’s up with the bizarre infatuation with John Campbell, igm?
    You bore us with the same post every day.
    He’s not even on television you plonker!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. flash2846 (289 comments) says:

    The reason green/labour people get away with so much dishonesty is because nothing better is expected of them. The Nats and ACT are entirely held to a much higher standard.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. RightNow (7,015 comments) says:

    Large donations should be declared to ensure the candidate is not beholden to the donor. How is a loan not worse?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Peter (1,695 comments) says:

    Oh, a loan you say? Well that’s completely different to, like, The Green Party supplying you with money to fight an election.

    Somewhere, a Tui billboard is going up….

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Of course they have. Just like their investment property arrangements.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    I understand Banks getting all shifty about being slipped $50,000 by a controversial billionaire – the reason there is obvious, Banks did not want to be seen auctioning off influence. Lee and Pannett, on the other hand, are openly Green party members. Is WCC watch suggesting the Green party is secretly attempting to influence its own candidates with clandestine payments?

    Why would members of a political party be motivated to hide donations from that party?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. OneTrack (3,367 comments) says:

    Yoza – what did the controversial billionaire think he was buying from Banks? He obviously didn’t get it because he went all bitter and twisted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Yoza (1,926 comments) says:

    OneTrack (1,421 comments) says:
    January 15th, 2014 at 7:39 am

    Yoza – what did the controversial billionaire think he was buying from Banks?

    $50,000 worth of high level political support, obviously. I don’t think wealthy people and corporations buying political influence in the form of campaign donations is unusual.

    He obviously didn’t get it because he went all bitter and twisted.

    How do you know? The knowledge of the payments were one of the consequences of the fallout resulting from the raid on Dotcom’s mansion, we wouldn’t have found out about those payments were it not for that raid.

    The allegations of the Green Party making secret payments to a couple of its candidates in a regional election seems completely bizarre, this is quite possibly the stupidest beat-up in the history of politics. I could understand National party candidates getting coy about their affiliations with the national body of that party and being shifty about financial support coming the central party organisation, they do like to pretend they are independent, but the Labour and Green party candidates openly advertise their affiliations with their parties during the local body campaigns.
    Why would Green Party, or Labour Party candidates for that matter, think it necessary to hide the fact that they are receiving financial support from their national bodies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Peter (1,695 comments) says:

    Perhaps because they wanted to be seen as independent.

    That was the mood pre-election. Party allegiance was downplayed or unspoken.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Yoza, the better question is why the Green Party would donate money to some candidates, but then “lend” it to others, particularly those others who were bragging about getting “donations” (not loans) from the Party.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. georgedarroch (303 comments) says:

    NK, different financial circumstances among councillors. And unlike the National Party, which has millions in the bank, the Greens have only a limited pool of cash.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    So those who can afford to repay it are loaned money, and those who cannot afford to repay are given it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. burt (7,428 comments) says:

    NK

    So those who can afford to repay it are loaned money, and those who cannot afford to repay are given it?

    No, those who declared it can keep it … The others having been caught “might” need to repay it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. adze (2,130 comments) says:

    georgedarroch, yeah they have a limited pool of cash, they certainly couldn’t afford to pay a small army of chuggers to collect signatures for a politically-motivated referendum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote