MPs’ Pecuniary Interests

May 7th, 2014 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

The 2013/14 register has just been published. Some of the interesting ones:

  • One of the gifts to John Banks was a legal opinion!
  • David Cunliffe has not revealed the names of the two other donors to the TR Trust that funded his leadership campaign
  • Paul Foster-Bell has shares in Mighty River Power (presumably before he was an MP)
  • John Key’s most common gift was golf green fees. ¬†Also the SAS gave him a framed print.
  • Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard had donations from Labour MPs for their¬†legal fees
  • Ian McKelvie is the Chairman of Special Olympics NZ
  • Louisa Wall got tickets to the Rugby Sevens
  • Craig Foss got given a statue of Azog the Defiler
Tags:

12 Responses to “MPs’ Pecuniary Interests”

  1. Colville (2,298 comments) says:

    http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Azog

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    So Cunliffe is still playing “Mr Hypocrite” ay?
    Pressure galore on Collins but when it comes to clarity on those donations then “that’s different”.

    What’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Fess up, Cunners. Who were those donors?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ thor42 (812 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 10:57 am

    If the money has been paid back, why do you need to know? What benefit is it to you or the country to know that information?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. RightNow (6,995 comments) says:

    “If the money has been paid back, why do you need to know? ”

    That’s a mighty big IF. Based on Cun’liffe’s past performance I wouldn’t believe anything he says.

    “What benefit is it to you or the country to know that information?”

    If he (try not to laugh here) was to be elected PM then don’t you think we should know who he is backed by? Or do you also not care who donates to John Key?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Chris2 (768 comments) says:

    Judith – that would be a fair comment if Cunliffe had refused the money outright because it effectivly was never received.

    But Cunliffe did accept the money and only later decided to return it.

    Using your logic, if an employee uses $20,000 from their work, and a few months later pays it back when caught out, then they have done nothing wrong and it is nobody’s business!

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. CHFR (234 comments) says:

    Judith, it is not the money or who paid it that matters but his attacks on the opposition when this is sitting at his feat like a stinking turd.

    Politics is rough and tumble, we all get that, but what we are seeing now goes way beyond that and the risk that voters of all stripes will not turn out or worse, turn on the politicians (it has happened before and will again) is ma possibility.

    Besides he gave it back when their identity would embaras either him or the donors stinks. He had the $$ for 6 months and asked a lot of questions in parliament over that time…possibly to benefit a donor who knows??

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Ashley Schaeffer (508 comments) says:

    I’m starting to think that Judith was one of Cunliffe’s backers.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    @Judith – “What benefit is it to you or the country to know that information?”

    It is of a *great deal* of benefit. Knowing who makes a donation, the public can then make a judgement on the character of the donor and (therefore) the character of the person receiving the donation as well.

    If the donor was a person of very doubtful character, that would reflect very badly on Cunliffe and his judgement in accepting the donation. His refusal to name names only stokes the suspicion that the donor was of dodgy character.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ thor42 (813 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:13 am

    Then would it not also being in the interests of the country to know who our Minister of Justice had dinner with whilst on ‘our time’. The public can then make a judgement on the character of that person, which will reflect on the character of Ms Collins for spending arranged time with that person in her official capacity.

    So we could then judge whether that person was of ‘doubtful character’ and then decide whether it reflected badly on the character of Collins and her judgement? Her refusal to name names only stokes the suspicion that the gues was of dogy character.

    You see – you can’t have all ways – which is my point – there is not one set of rules for the opposition and one set for National. Either they both are open and transparent, or they aren’t, in which case, we accept their dodgy dealings, and shut the hell up when the other team acts in the same way. It is the hypocrisy that annoys me – not who the team is that is practicing it currently.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. CHFR (234 comments) says:

    So are you saying that a Chinese business man is of dubious character.

    Stop and think before you answer please.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ CHFR (198 comments) says:
    May 7th, 2014 at 11:49 am

    Nope, I’m saying just like what has been said about the donors by you lot, we have no way of knowing, if we don’t know who they are. You seem to think its important to know about the character of people – so I’m presuming that would be the character of all people, or is it just who the opposition deal with – you know, double standards type stuff?
    (I’m surprised you couldn’t work that out for yourself?)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. kiwi in america (2,508 comments) says:

    Judith
    Judith Collins was not at the dinner in any official capacity – it was a private dinner. Not every second of her time in China was scheduled for official business. I’m sure many Labour Minsters had private dinners while on overseas trips paid for by the tax payers. I didn’t hear your squawking about any of them. The dinner was not paid for by the taxpayers.

    There’s a big difference between who attends a private dinner and who funds a leadership primary campaign when the campaigner condemned his opponents for the use of secret trusts and then not only used one himself but still refuses to reveal his donors.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote