Kiwiblog

The Dom Post reports:

Kerry Prendergast has confirmed she will stand for a fourth term as Wellington mayor.

She told The Dominion Post last night that she would stand again as an independent, after earlier ruling out contesting the October election so she could spend more time with her family.

She will announce her candidacy this morning, appearing to kill the possibility that she would front an election bid on the Sir Bob Jones-promoted Vibrant Wellington ticket.

“I have decided to seek a fourth term as mayor to ensure there is ongoing confidence in Wellington’s direction, leadership and management of the council. I have always stood as an independent and I will do so again this year.”

Significant challenges included retaining the NZI Sevens tournament, increasing inner-city safety, and ensuring Wellington maintained a strong voice on national issues and resource allocation, Ms Prendergast, 56, said. “My campaign will be about how Wellington is doing really well at the moment and is a fantastic city. Why change?”

iPredict has Kerry;s probability of re-election at 86%, which seems about right to me.

Sir Bob said Ms Prendergast’s decision came as no surprise but he believed there was still a possibility she might stand on the Vibrant Wellington ticket.

The central plank of the business-led group is to create a bus-free pedestrian boulevard in the central city.

“If Kerry is going to back this, and it has been hinted at, then we wouldn’t put a mayoral candidate up. Simple as that. It would create a monument to her tenure as mayor.”

I’m a big fan of the vision to have a vehicle free boulevard from Courtenay Place to Lampton Quay. It will be interesting to see who stands on the Bob Jones ticket.

Personally I don’t think the ticket needs to worry about the Mayoral spot – the Mayor has only one vote, and has a huge number of other things to do. All the ticket needs is a majority on Council to instruct officers to draw up a plan for consultation setting out how the boulevard can be created, and what the cost is.

The managing director of iconic Wellington store Kirks, writes in the Dom Post:

Kirkcaldie & Stains is one of Wellington’s longer-established stores.

As its managing director, I was delighted to read the views of the Wellington Chamber of Commerce on proposals to make the Golden Mile a mall and I  empathise with Sir Bob Jones’ vision for  the city.

But I also fear that without much  more work being done, we risk badly damaging New Zealand’s best urban centre. …

Ease of access is vital for our company. Most customers are happy to walk some distance to visit us, others take public transport. But a significant number of customers like being able to park their cars nearby during the week and particularly at weekends.

If access becomes too difficult, customers will cease visiting the CBD and will do all their shopping in the city’s suburban malls.

I agree. And what may have to be looked at is more parking buildings, so people can still park easily next to Lambton Quay.

We need to be sure that we have sufficient population numbers and visitors to sustain a mall of the size that is being proposed. And central to the issue of ease of access for private transport is the matter of access to affordable and convenient car- parking.

I am a little unsure what Sir Bob is proposing with regard to this important matter, and I am also unsure what the Wellington city and regional councils can deliver on car parking now that the car parks are essentially out of their direct control.

I am not saying that any of the concerns or questions raised are reasons why we should not run with Sir Bob’s vision.

But I agree fully with the Chamber of Commerce that we need to give the idea very careful study.

Study yes – but a study that goes somewhere. Not a study to justify doing nothing. I want a study on what would be the best way to achieve Sir Bob’s vision, and how practical it is.

Bob Jones writes in the Dom Post:

First, it is not the cars that are the main concern. In fact very few cars traverse the Golden Mile during the day, a response to the Wellington City Council’s wise initiatives intended to deter them.

They have worked. Rather, it is the abrasive buses which are the principal problem. Buses and pedestrians are a terrible mix. The present council’s policy seems geared to making the city friendly towards buses rather than to its citizens and it’s both wrong and unnecessary. …

Mr Finny also argues that parts of the Golden Mile are so wide that the danger exists of a “dead look”.

In fact the wide sections, notably the end of Lambton Quay and Courtenay Place, will provide opportunity to pay for the proposal. In the case of Lambton Quay, exactly as with all the pedestrianised cities, the spacious parts can be used for (partially) outdoor cafes, florists, newsagents and the like.

With Courtenay Place, apartment building sites with ground-level retail can be created in a plaza setting. Other options include a skating rink, fountains and other visual and recreational features.

As for goods delivery, in fact all of the office buildings along the route are serviced from the rear, off streets such as The Terrace etc. …

We will additionally detail our proposal to establish a Saturday Lambton Quay street market, as exists in all European cities and which, without exception, draws thousands of folk, regardless of the weather. Our proposal is not new. Consultants engaged by the council from Europe and America have recommended exactly this to previous councils but they have lacked the initiative to act.

People like a man and a team with vision, even if they don’t agree with it 100%.

I think there is a reasonable chance that a ticket standing on the issue of creating a vehicle free golden mile, as advocated by Sir Bob, could win most if not all the spots on Council.

This could be the most exciting Council elections since 1995.

The Dom Post reports:

Kerry Prendergast is considering another crack at the Wellington mayoralty, after previously ruling out a fourth term.

But she could find herself in the race of her life against a candidate selected by Sir Robert Jones.

The millionaire Wellington businessman has confirmed he is rounding up a high-profile team to run for both the mayoralty and councillor positions at next year’s election.

This will be interesting. Tickets can be useful for getting a mandate for an agenda. But as Wellington Alive found out, they can also often fall apart.

Already three candidates – green-leaning city councillors Ray Ahipene-Mercer and Bryan Pepperell, and local businessman Jack Yan – have entered the race.

Ahipene-Mercer has always seemed a pretty good Councillor to me, even though his politics are on the left. My comments on Pepperell are unprintable.

I don’t know Jack Yan, but think this is his blog.

Sir Robert expects to announce his election team in the new year, but his name will not be among the candidates. “I won’t be running because I am too contentious.”

His team would ban vehicles from the city’s “Golden Mile” – Lambton Quay, Courtenay Place, Willis and Manners streets – to create a pedestrian mall complete with free trams and cycle lanes.

“The whole ambience of the place would just boom … and the team, who are all name people, feel that Wellington has the potential to be magic.”

I quite like the vision.  Not sure how practical it is, but the vision appeals.

An amusing profile of Bob Jones by his friend, Deborah Coddington.

As a teenager in the 80s I read all of Bob’s books and loved them. His “Letters” are a priceless read. I have only met him once – in 2007.

I was asked to come over to his office to join a discussion over the Electoral Finance Bill, and ways he could contribute to a campaign against it. I went over at 3 pm, expecting to be back at my desk by 5 pm. I staggered out of Sir Bob’s office, along with John Ansell, at around 4 am. During that 13 hours we drank many bottles of superb wine, and the only food we had was potato chips. I really could barely walk.

Anyway back to the profile:

“I had two MPs in my office last night but, unusually, we didn’t drink much because they left early. So-and-so and what’s-his-name? The duck?”

“Trevor Mallard?”

“Yes, Mallard. Only one glass each.”

Heh.

Certainly, there has been a vigour about his family life. Last month he told M2 Magazine: “I have vast numbers of children ranging from 4 to 40 years of age. All have been produced by diverse women without my consent, my participation having been fleeting.”

His correspondence with their various schools is one of the best parts of his Letters books.

Then there are some who painfully remember Jones’ own pugilism, including the time television reporter Rod Vaughan, determined to get an answer from Jones about the future of his New Zealand Party, flew by helicopter to Jones’ trout fishing patch at Turangi. Jones moved like lightning out of the undergrowth and punched Vaughan on the nose.

When fined $1000 in court, Jones asked the judge if he paid $2000, could he please do it again?

Never had a country been so united behind one man. I recall even the Governor-General was over-heard saying how much he approved of what Jones did. The video of the assault was wonderful theatre.

But the charmer also loves to shock. A few months ago he invited me to join him for lunch with Wellington lawyer Mai Chen. When Jones was informed by Chen that she doesn’t drink alcohol he claimed to be horrified: “You poor bastard. Tom Scott’s coming along. Deborah’s got no pants on (not true). There’ll be an orgy later (also untrue). I feel sorry for you.”

Heh.

Jones also has a thing about dark glasses, especially when worn on the top of the head. As if on cue, this bete noire popped up near the end of lunch.

As we filed out of the Arbitrageur restaurant Jones spied a woman sporting a flash pair of sunnies atop her blonde mane, and started muttering about people wearing sunglasses on their heads. I recognised the wearer as Wellington blogger “Busted Blonde”, and guessed, correctly, that Jones would be repaid the next day on her Roar Prawn blogsite.

The blog post is here.

But Jones enjoys fomenting mischief and critics should ignore him. He’s been insulting me for nearly 20 years and I’m not particularly thick-skinned. When he decided I should meet Colin Carruthers, I was instructed to not “dress like a whore, none of that paint smeared on your face, just lipgloss”.

When the progressing relationship pleased him, this unlikely Dorothy Dix offered more advice: “Don’t let him take you away to an island resort. At your age, you can’t be seen prancing around in a bikini. Get him to take you skiing so your body’s well covered.”

So how, my feminist friends ask, can you remain close to someone so obviously sexist? The Listener’s Jane Clifton, who has been his good mate since she was a “baby journalist”, gets the same queries and laughs them off.

“Way back before I even knew him well, someone wrote something spiteful and gutless about me and Bob wrote me this letter which was not just of comfort but which said, ‘the problem as I see it is that **** is a conspicuously hideous beast and you are not’. It was bloody useful and restorative to be told that. Bob saw an injustice, and was extraordinarily nice about it.

I love the story of how he paid his receptionist to change her name by deed poll.

Sir Bob Jones did also predict a one-term Government in 2000. See below:

Trevor Mallard blogs a column by Sir Bob Jones where he predicts Phil Goff will win the 2011 election, and Winston will make it back.

I feel obliged to point out that (0ff memory) he predicted Labour would lose in 2002. and again predicted they would lose in 2005 to a National/ACT/NZ First Government led by Bill English.

David Benson-Pope will be happy – his complaint to the Electoral Commission against ACT has been upheld.

Up until 2005 Sir Robert Jones provided free office space to ACT for an out of parliament office. The value was around $20,000 a year.

ACT’s position was:

The Party Secretary acknowledges that the office space was provided “for an Out of Parliament office” used for the Wellington-based list MPs to carry out their constituency work and that the office staff and equipment were funded by Parliamentary Services out of the budget provided for the list MPs.

The Secretary states that the party did not use the office for campaigning or other party purposes, as the party obtained another office for those purposes.

The Secretary claims that the party did not benefit from the provision of the office space and
therefore did not need to declare it.

In a way this is really about whether a donation to a parliamentary section of a party counts as a donation to the party. The consequences of this ruling could be quite large, as any MP who gets a cheap rate for their out of parliament office may be covered by this.

The Commission ruled that the parliamentary section of a party is considered part of a party, and the free rent was a donation that should have been declared. The deadline for prosecutions has expired, luckily for ACT. They have asked ACT to file amended returns for the affected years.

Some will claim a moral equivalence with NZ First. That is nonsense. There is a reasonable argument (even though they lost the argument) about whether free OOP office space for MPs (which by definition should not be used for political or campaign activity) should be included as a party donation. There is no argument over receiving large sums of money directly and not declaring them.

This does not mean ACT can not be criticised for their decision. If I was in their shoes I would have pro-actively asked the Electoral Commission for a ruling on whether free office space for an MPs office constitutes a donation to the party itself. Erring on the side of caution is sensible when it comes to electoral law.

Bob Jones is as interesting as always:

Helen hinted at a fear- mongering campaign about secret National agendas to sell off state assets. It won’t work against Key as his open countenance screams believability. He’s one of those rare individuals who’s a natural smiler and, as a result, to whom people warm.

A natural smiler – a nice phrase and true.

The Greens are an enigma. They could inherit disenchanted Labour votes but that depends on their new co-leader’s ability to dispel their basket-weaving, folk-dancing, hand-wringing imagery. Now everyone’s green they may be deemed irrelevant.

Heh.

Dunne is the town bike of politics. He’s available to anyone who will have him but the ravages of a quarter-century’s political promiscuity have induced an electoral impotence and the time can’t be far off when voters put him out to pasture.

Ouch. The town bike of politics. Bob did stand against Peter in 1984.

Winston’s shenanigans aside, thanks to the evil Electoral Finance Act inhibiting public participation, this election augurs poorly on the entertainment front. Thank goodness we have a fascinating US presidential race to keep us amused.

Yep. Much more interesting.

The Dom Post has a column on Winston Peters from Bob Jones. Go read it yourself but I do have to quote the last two paragraphs:

This has been no Icarus fall, instead there’s a whiff of Graham Capill about Winston’s descent. There were the baubles of office betrayal, the theft and refusal to return taxpayers money and the swirling rumours around the scampi matter.

Jones is on the mark here. He does not mean that Peters is a kiddy fiddler. Just that politicians who go on and on the most about an issue (society’s morals or secret business donations) are often practising what they condemn.

Is it possible that somewhere in darkest Africa, an ancient toothless crone muttering gibberish in the corner of her hut might believe Winston’s story over the $100,000 Glenn payment? If so then she will be alone in the world.

Sadly Sir Robert is not quite accurate here. Two people in the world say they believe Winston. One if the ancient toothless crone in a hut in darkest Africa. The other is the Prime Minister of New Zealand who keeps feeding him his baubles.

To say NZ First’s latest explanation fails the Tui test, is putting it mildy. Before we totally dismiss it out of hand, let us look at what they say:

The New Zealand First Party has admited they made a mistake by not declaring a donation they recieved from Sir Robert Jones.

The party is putting the non declaration down to an administrative error which happened at a time when they say there was an extensive changeover in administrative staff, who were new to their responsibilities.

They say the $25,000 donation was correctly banked into the New Zealand First account, along with other donations which were unfortunately overlooked when it came to declaring anything over $10,000.

The latest revelation comes after the Serious Fraud Office obtained Spencer Trust records.

The letter from auditor Nick Kosoof says New Zealand First made an administrative error by not declaring the money.

It says the amount was banked into the party’s bank account in September 2005, and unfortunately went overlooked by error, along with other donations.

This fails the credibility test on so many levels, it is not funny.

1. The TV3 item on the Spencer Trust showed a payment of $50,000 not $25,000 paid to NZ First.
2. NZ First has never ever declared a single donation from the Spencer Trust, so are we to believe that in three years of existence it has only received and passed onto NZ First a singular donation from Bob Jones?
3. NZ First claim to have only had a couple of donations over $10,000 in the last decade, so how one could overlook your largest ever donation since 1996 is beyond belief.
4. Since the Jones donation was exposed a couple of months ago there has been speculation that the NZ First 2005 return may be inaccurate. Why did no one in NZ First check until today?
5. Why is the auditor, not the accountant, explaining the error? Are they the same person as suggested in the NZPA report?

There is a constant pattern here with NZ First – deny the donation until it is no longer credible to deny it, and then suddenly discover it somewhere. They do not deserve any benefit of the doubt. Thank God the SFO is investigating.

Even though they can not be prosecuted under the Electoral Act for the breach, it doesn’t mean that the SFO shouldn’t disclose how many other donations were illegally not declared to the Electoral Commission.

This also poses a challenge for Helen Clark. She has said she will act if there is evidence of illegal behaviour. We now have an admission from NZ First that it broke the Electoral Act 2003 in April 2006 (and maybe again since then). And filing a false donations return is not a minor or technical breach – it is incredibly serious.

First listen to Bob Jones here.

Jones explicitly says Peters has lied to Parliament, as he is not happy with the information he has received to date.

Then listen to Winston Peters here.

Peters reveals he has been speaking to Bob Jones to reassure him about his donation to the Spencer Trust, and that it has been properly accounted for. But if Winston knows nothing about the Spencer Trust, how can he give that reassurance?

He went onto to say he had made inquires and is satisfied the money conclusively demonstrably ended up in NZ First.

If so, then why was no donation from either Bob Jones or the Spencer Trust declared in NZ First’s annual donation return to the Electoral Commission?

The entire interview is pathetic with Peters grasping for straws. He could give no credible answer to the question as to why he was not concerned that Owen Glenn was telling the PM of a donation he claimed to know nothing about. Any sane person would have contacted Owen Glenn and asked him why does he has this belief?

We also know that Peters and Glenn had talked after Feb 2008. Are we expected to beleive that having had the Prime Minister of NZ tell you that Owen Glenn thinks he donated $100,000 to you, Winston Peters would not have raised the issue with Owen Glenn when they were talking on other issues?

The Herald on Sunday reports that two investigators from the Serious Fraud Office met Sir Robert Jones during the week, as part of their work in determining whether to launch a full formal investigation.

Bob Jones has said he will complain to the Police if he does not get an answer from NZ First:

Sir Robert Jones has written again to New Zealand First, this time threatening to go the police if he gets another “evasive reply” about where his $25,000 donation went. …

“My sole concern is the money was used for party purposes, but getting a straight answer from New Zealand First is a recipe for disappointment,” Sir Robert said. “If the money has not reached the party, it constitutes theft. If I receive another evasive reply then clearly it is a matter for the police.”

Here is the dilemna for NZ First. If they say “Yes the money was spent on behalf of NZ First” then they have arguably filed a false donations return. If they say “No, we won’t tell you” then Bob will go to the Police.

Many on the left (and some journalists who should know better) have been pushing a theme (started by Helen) that all this nasty non-transparent stuff done by NZ First is due to the old Electoral Act, and could not happen under the Electoral Finance Act.

Now it is true the EFA does tighten up things in some areas, but it makes little difference to the three funding controversies that NZ First has had exposed. Let’s take them one by one.

The Owen Glenn $100,000 donation

As we now know, Owen Glenn donated $100,000 towards Winston’s legal bills – which made it effectively a donation to Winston personally as he would have had to pay $100,000 more if Glenn had not donated.

Now the Electoral Finance Act only deals with donations to parties, not to MPs personally.

So foreign billionaires could continue to make large donations to MPs, while seeking favours from them, and it would all be legal under the EFA, and there would be no requirement for it to be made public.

So the EFA in no way affects repeats of the Owen Glenn donation.

And here is the sad reality. The EFA probably makes such donations more likely and more common. If donations to parties have to be disclosed but donations to trusts which pay off bills for MPs do not have to be disclosed, then more and more donors may choose to donate to MPs personally instead of their parties.

And no the Register of Pecuniary Interests will not have much effect here either, if they do it through a trust.

The Vela $150,000 donations

Now what it appears the Vela did was make a series of $10,000 donations from different people and companies. Now surely this could not happen under the EFA?

Well yes it could. Every company and every adult is treated as a seperate donor under 21(2)

donor means a person who makes a donation

And even if the companies are all owned by the same individual, each is a separate donor as they are separate persons in a legal sense..

Now the EFA does have some provisions which tighten things up. For example if I have $30,000 I can’t give $10,000 to my secretary and $10,000 to my cleaner for them to donate to a party. If I supply the money to them for a donation, they need to disclose whom they are donating on behalf of under s 26(1).

But in the case of the Velas, each company and each adult has their own money so they can easily arrange to donate $50,000 or $100,000 in a year with none of it ever getting disclosed.

The Bob Jones $25,000 donation

As we know Bob paid $25,000 to the Spencer Trust, thinking it was going to NZ First. Now as the Spencer Trust was never disclosed as a donor itself, it is highly unlikely under the EFA Sir Bob would end up being listed as a donor.

The Spencer Trust may have made a series of anonymous $10,000 donations to NZ First under the old Electoral Act, and this would have been legal. They could still do this under the EFA but would have to make a series of $1,000 anonymous donations instead.

Under the EFA the Spencer Trust could donate $36,000 anonymously through the Electoral Commission to NZ First and not have this disclosed.

If the Spencer Tust pays expenses of behalf of Winston personally, then that is like the Owen Glenn donation and not something disclosed under the EA or EFA.

And even if the Spencer Trust pays for expenses of behalf of NZ First, then it is just as likely that would be illegal or legal under both the EA or EFA. Their definitions are pretty similiar. First the old EA, s214F:

party donation, in relation to a party registered under Part 4,-

(a) means a donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things)-

(i) which is received by or on behalf of the party by any person or body of persons involved in the administration of the affairs of the party; and

(ii) which, either on its own or when aggregated with all other such donations made in the same year by the same person exceeds $10,000 in sum or value (inclusive of goods and services tax); and

(b) includes, where goods or services are provided to the party under a contract at 90% or less of their reasonable market value, the amount of the difference between the contractual price of the goods or services and the reasonable market value of those goods or services; but

(c) does not include the labour of any person which is provided to the party free of charge by that person;

So the old EA made clear donations include goods or services, and any discounting beyond 10%. And the EFA, s 21(2):

party donation means a donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) that is made to a party, or to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party, and-

(a) includes,-

(i) where goods or services are provided to a party, or to any person on the party’s behalf, under a contract or arrangement at a value less than their reasonable market value, the latter being a value which exceeds $1,000, the amount of the difference between the former value and the reasonable market value of those goods or services; and

(ii) where goods or services are provided by a party under a contract or arrangement at a value that is more than their reasonable market value, the amount of the difference between that value and the reasonable market value of those goods or services; and

(iii) where credit is provided to a party on terms and conditions substantially more favourable than the commercial terms and conditions prevailing at the time for the same or similar credit, the value to the party of those more favourable terms and conditions;

Some change and tightening up, but overall its is likely that the legality of how the Spencer Trust “assists” NZ First without disclosing it is a donor, is unchanged under the new law.

So don’t believe what Helen says about these are all problems of the old Electoral Act, and can’t happen under the Electoral Finance Act. Absolutely everything NZ First has been doing, could continue under the Electoral Finance Act. And in fact there is now a greater incentive for people to donate personally to MPs, rather than to their parties. And that would be a very bad thing indeed.

Winston has just spoken in the general debate. If the allegations were not so serious, it would be comical. He did not address a single issue of substance, but of course just attacked everyone. He basically said:

• Informed Speaker in May 2005 of allegations now appearing in Dominion Post (I think this is re the scampi issue back then)
• Said TVNZ has two investigators trying to dig up dirt on him.
• Talked of how Bill Ralston at TVNZ hired Phil Kitchin, as is this is somehow sinister
• Alleged that Phil Kitchin has misled Bob Jones in order to get a story
• Said that he sacked Rex W in 1996 and Rex not credible as he chats to teenage girls online
• Said that he was told at his mother’s funeral that there is a “pot of money” on offer for anyone who can dig up dirt on him
• Referred to the media as brainless meerkats
• Said that when he refuses to answer a stupid question, that is not a denial!

Remember how he said last week he would address the conflicts between what Bob Jones (and Professor Wright) said and what he has said. He hasn’t even attempted to do this.If this was meant to be a fuller explanation, I would hate to see a less full explanation.

In related news, Rodney Hide has laid a complaint with the Serious Fraud Office. It will be interesting to see if they decide to investigate. Considering they invesigated a similiar allegation against National in 2002, I can’t see how they can credibly not invesigate. That is not to say they will necessairly find illegal behaviour. Unless one actually knows what the Spencer Trust spends its money on, you can’t conclude on issues of legality.

Bomber Bradbury Tim Selwyn at Tumeke has done this nice little slush fund diagram to help people understand how it all works. Good job.

If there is a second edition, one could add on Ross Meurant next to Roger McClay as a collector of money, and also the Vela family as funders.

Radio NZ has talked to Professor Malcolm Wright who worked for Sir Robert in 2005. They report:

Professor Malcolm Wright, who worked for Sir Robert three years ago, says he recalls Mr Peters and a staff member visiting Sir Robert for drinks in 2005, where the issue of a donation was discussed.

“Sir Robert was opposed to making a donation. In the end, though, he agreed that he would. There had been a higher sum asked for, and Sir Robert said: ‘Well, I’ll give you $25,000 for mateship’, which Winston agreed to, and they shook hands on that.”

Professor Wright says he was told some days later by one of Mr Peters’ staff members to make a cheque out to a trust, although he cannot recall its name. He says Sir Robert thought the money was going to New Zealand First.

Now it is worth remembering that Professor Wright was a first hand witness to this. Peters has made it clear he is going to attack Jones’ credibility and recall. But Professor Wright seems very clear on the salient details.

The failure of Peters to close these issues down was obvious on TV One last night. Their political editor, Guyon Espiner, is usually reluctant to be categorical on an issue, but he made it very clear that he saw the press conference as avoiding all the relevant questions.

Young and Trevett in the Herald report:

Serious credibility questions remain for Foreign Minister Winston Peters after he failed yesterday to throw any light on what happened to a $25,000 donation given by Sir Robert Jones in 2005 for Mr Peters’ NZ First Party.

Sir Robert said he was dismayed at what Mr Peters said yesterday and believed a police complaint will follow shortly – although he said he would not be making it.

If the Spencer Trust will not tell Sir Bob what they did with his money, he should demand it back as it was given on condition of helping NZ First’s election campaign.

He predicted that Mr Peters was “going to die on his own sword on this matter”.

Mr Peters said the police would not be “so naive or uninformed or unprofessional” to investigate the matter.

That sounds like close to a threat to me?

He also said that Roger McClay – a former adviser to Mr Peters – asked for the cheque to be made out to the Spencer Trust.

Wayne Peters had sent Sir Robert a receipt from the Spencer Trust.

So Winston’s staff member asks for the money to go to the Spencer Trust and his brother recepits the money yet WInston claims like Sergeant Schultz to know nothing.

Mr Peters protested his ignorance of the Spencer Trust yesterday and said Sir Robert was wrong.

“Bob’s memory is failing him here.”

Mr Peters said he had not solicited the donation, as Sir Robert claimed.

So who did? Can Peters explain why Jones would donate to the Spencer Trust?

He said he had no involvement with the Spencer Trust, that he did not know what the trust had used the money for, and that he had not spoken to his brother about the trust.

There are so many people he does not speak to. His lawyer over his legal fees, his staff over their fundraising activites on his behalf and his brother over the trust set up to support his party.

Maybe next he will deny even knowing his brother?

The NZ Herald Editorial:

Rather than answer that or any other question yesterday, Winston Peters said he was “not required” to disclose anything about the Spencer Trust. “New Zealand First is not going to subject itself to demands not required of any other political party or leader.”

That is nonsense. If any other party or leader had asked for a cheque to be made out to a mysterious trust and never accounted for it, Mr Peters would be scandalised.

Exactly.

Corruption is a word seldom heard in political debate here except from him – often, ironically, on the subject of undisclosed contributions. It rolls off his tongue much too readily when other parties’ dealings are under discussion.

We do not propose to treat him as he treats others. We will not believe there is wilful dishonesty unless it is proven beyond doubt. The very suspicion of corruption is poisonous to public confidence in government and politics. To spread such poison without proof does almost as much harm as corruption itself.

What is becoming clear to me is we need a very powerful investigative body that can deal with suspected wrong-doing by the powerful.

John Armstrong:

Trying to bring Peters back into the real world – rather than the fantasy world he has been inhabiting for the past fortnight – is not an act of kindness. It is an act of necessity to stop NZ First’s downward spiral taking Labour with it. …

This time Peters’ usual response to crisis – the bluster, the diversions, the smokescreens and games over semantics – are not going to suffice. …

But Clark holds all the cards, not Peters. Were she to sack him, Peters technically could pull NZ First out of its support arrangement with Labour. But the only loser from that would be NZ First. Jumping ship would make it look like NZ First put Peters’ ego ahead of stable Government. It would demonstrate that NZ First can never be trusted to stay the course. It would be electoral suicide. …

The question is how mant weeks will Clark let this carry on for?

Kitchin and Watkins in the Dom Post:

Sir Robert Jones has accused Winston Peters of “lying” about a $25,000 political donation.

Will Winston sue Sir Robert for defamation? I suspect not.

Mr Peters lashed out yesterday at what he labelled a campaign of “innuendo and character assassination”. He insisted he had done nothing wrong after revelations by The Dominion Post that Sir Robert’s $25,000 cheque for NZ First was not disclosed to electoral authorities.

In response, Sir Robert accused Mr Peters of talking “rubbish”. “I’m very sad that Winston has now resorted to blatant lying,” Sir Robert told The Dominion Post.

It really was a mistake for Peters toget into a scrap with Jones.

But his version of events, in relation to the circumstances in which the $25,000 cheque was given, is completely at odds with Sir Robert’s.

The tycoon said Mr Peters had approached him seeking money for NZ First a month before the 2005 election. Sir Robert said he signed a blank cheque and one of his staff later made it out for $25,000 to the Spencer Trust.

Sir Robert said: “I would have been happy if he [Mr Peters] had spent the money on what it was intended for – NZ First … but this Spencer Trust, I’d never heard of it till it was drawn to my attention this week.”

I think people would be shocked to learn exactly how much money the Spencer Trust has had donated over the years – and with never a cent of it declared as having been donated to NZ First. So either the Trust is sitting on a huge bank balance or it has been spending the money in some way to benefit NZ First.

And that expenditure may constitute an effective donation in kind which should have been declared. If they paid for advertisements on their behalf it certainly would. If they paid the wages of campaign staff members then less clear cut. The issues of legality are almost impossible to determine without actually knowing what the Spencer Trust has spent its money on.

This latest issue is coming down to a credibility test of Peters vs Jones. Now whenever two people are giving contradictory statements that can not be reconciled, I look at motivations. If one of them is lying, then why?

I just cannot see a logical reason for Sir Robert to not be telling the truth. What does he have to gain? Plus his version of events has been backed up by Professor Malcom Wright, his former General Manager, who now lives in Australia. Sir Robert says he had donated up to $250,000 to Winston/NZ First/Spencer Trust/Brian Henry Legal Fund over the years. This doesn’t seem like the actions of someone who would try to destroy Winston’s career by lying about said donations.

The Dominion Post has revealed that Ross Meurant collected cheques from the Vela Family for Winston/NZ First/Spencer Trust/Brian Henry Legal Fund and Sir Robert (plus other sources) have confirmed Roger McClay also collected money for Winston/NZ First/Spencer Trust/Brian Henry Legal Fund.

Now both these men were close friends of Winston’s, but more to the point were employed in his parliamentary office. The rules over what you can do as a parliamentary staffer are open to some interpretation – but there can be no doubt you should not be going around meeting potential donors and picking up cheques off them. Maybe someone will argue they did this in their spare time. But the significance is they worked for Winston personally – not the party. The Party President and Party Deputy Leader both say they have never heard of The Spencer Trust. Are we to believe that staff in Winston’s private office somehow magically found out about it, from someone other than Winston, and on their own initiative decided to go around soliciting money for it?

NZPA reports on Winston’s response:

Television New Zealand News has shown Mr Peters saying he has no involvement with the Spencer Trust, into which Sir Robert Jones paid $25,000 when he believed he was giving a donation to Mr Peters.

Mr Peters also said Sir Robert was wrong when he claimed Mr Peters had asked him for the donation.

Mr Peters told journalists they should ask the Spencer Trust what they did with the money.

“I have been advised by party officials at the time that there is nothing NZ First is required to disclose arising from the Spencer Trust,” Mr Peters said.

The headline is that Peters has suggested Sir Robert’s memory is fading. I suspect that was very unwise of him.

He has issued a press release:

1. The Glenn contribution went to my barrister Brian Henry. As soon as I learned of it I informed the Prime Minister and alerted the media.

But he never thought to ask Brian earlier if the mystery $100,000 donor was Owen Glenn.

2. The issue of taxation on this contribution is without merit. Legal experts have said so.

Which legal experts? Opinion is divided as far as I can tell. In the end not that big an issue as the IRD will form its own view.

3. No gift duty is payable. Gift duty is based on the laws of the country where the donor is domiciled.

See earlier post for differing views on this.

4. No declaration of pecuniary interest is required. This was made clear by the official advice given to Nick Smith as he revealed in the House this week.

Not at all. In fact Nick Smith did declare a beneficial interest.

5. The Vela cheque is lawful.

I don’t think anyone has suggested it wasn’t. The issue is the hypocrisy of hiding your large donors when you rail against other parties that do the same.

6. The Robert Jones claim that he gave $25,000 to New Zealand First?

- The cheque was made out to the Spencer Trust.
- The cheque was not made out to New Zealand First.

Here is where he just won’t front up, and just states a truism. Everyone knows who the cheque was made out to. The issue is why NZ First representatives are soliciting money on behalf of NZ First and asking for it to be paid into The Spencer Trust.

Is Peters really saying that Sir Robert Jones decided on his own initiative to donate $25,000 to a trust he has never heard of, and that it is unlinked to NZ First?

And never mind the hypocrisy of his attacks on other trusts.

- I have been advised by party officials at the time that there is nothing New Zealand First is required to disclose arising from the Spencer Trust.

Your own President and Deputy Leader say they have never heard of The Spencer Trust so how could they know anything about what the Spencer Trust may have done on behalf of NZ First?

7. Neither I nor my barrister has any involvement with the Spencer Trust.

Note the careful use of language. He says “involvement”. That doesn’t mean he doesn’t know exactly who has paid money into The Spencer Trust and what that money has been spent on. Knowledge is not involvement.

And what Winston doesn’t matter is that his brother runs the Trust. Are we to believe this is a coincidence? And can Winston explain why members of his parliamentary staff were soliciting money for the Spencer Trust?

8. The claim that the 1997 Cushing case settlement of $125,000 was paid by an anonymous donor is untrue. I paid the costs and have offered to show the reporter in question the details. This offer has not been taken up and no withdrawal of the claim has been published.

However it is a mystery who paid the $40,000 costs to Bob Clarkson in the 2005/6 case?

I can’t wait for Sir Robert’s reaction!

One of the stories today is that John Key has made the NBR rich list – just. They estimate his wealth at $50 million, which is what most people have been estimating for the last few years.

I don’t do the politics of envy, but I will admit to a passing pang of envy as I read John has a stake in an Aspen ski resort. Oh God, if I owned property in Aspen you would never see me in NZ for a few months every year.

NBR also reports Graeme Hart’s rise to over $5 billion:

Graeme Hart’s wealth comes from timber and packaging, and he has more than doubled his fortune from $2.75 billion last year.

The NBR says the 53-year-old has joined the ranks of the “seriously wealthy”, sitting just one spot below the world’s top 200 Forbes list of billionaires – and higher than Donald Trump, Sir Richard Branson and Steven Spielberg.

Well done Mr Hart.

NBR also note the Velas are ranked 46th at $150 million and Sir Bob Jones 30th with $250 million.

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:

(more…)

Phil Kitchin in the Dominion Post reveals another secret donation to NZ First – $25,000 from SIr Robert Jones in 2005 and $50,000 in 1993.

Neither of these donations has ever been declared.

The 2005 one went into The Spencer Trust, which is administed by Wayne Peters – Winston’s brother.

Now there are three issues here for NZ First – their brand, their hypocrisy and legal issues.

Brand

NZ First has portrayed itself as the party of the underdog fighting wealthy interests. But in the last few days we have learnt that NZ First and/or its leader has received donations from a foreign resident billionaire, a foreign resident family worth around $180 million and a local millionaire worth $400 million or so.

NZ First has purported to be a party funded by lots of $20 and $50 donations but seems to have more mega rich donors than anyone thought. What is the average NZ First supporter or MP thinking?

Hypocrisy

As detailed in this Dom Post story, Peters has railed against secret donations, against the use of trusts funds to collect donations etc.

It is becoming clear that NZ First has been engaging in the exact behaviour it has so criticised over the years. In fact its behaviour has been less transparent it seems than those it criticised.

Legal

Now it is (or was) legal for someone to donate to a trust and for the trust to then donate to a party. However the party has to declare the donation from the trust, and NZ First has never ever disclosed a single donation from the Spencer Trust. People go on about the Waitemata Trust – but at least people know that exists and how much it donates to National. Until today The Spencer Trust was unknown to almost everyone (I actually first heard about it and a link to NZ First last year), so this is a level of transparency which is rock bottom.

Now accounts are audited, so how come there are no donations recorded from the Spencer Trust to NZ First? Well according to the Kitchin article, it simply just pays bills on behalf of NZ First.

Sound a familiar method of operation? And all impossible for an auditor to detect.

However I suspect the legal position is that paying a bill on behalf of a party counts as an donation to the party, and should have been declared.

The Electoral Commission needs to decide if it has a role here. The time limit for prosecutions over the 2005 election return has passed, but the 2007 return might now be questioned if this behaviour is not a one off. If the allegations are correct and the Spencer Trust is paying bills on behalf of the party, then that is an issue to be investigated.

Finally in the interest of balance, we quote the denials given to the Dominion Post:

Mr Peters, who is in Singapore, would not comment yesterday. Responding later to written questions about Sir Robert’s donation going to the Spencer Trust, he would say only that the information was “not factual”.

Is he saying Sir Robert is mistaken?

Early this week The Dominion Post asked a spokesman for Mr Peters if a trust run by his brother had sometimes paid NZ First bills.

Through the spokesman, Mr Peters said: “That is a lie.”

And that is a clear cuit denial. So what does Sir Robert say:

When contacted yesterday, Sir Robert said he was making his own inquiries with NZ First officials and would not comment further at this stage.

Sir Robert is a straight shooter. I look forward to hearing his comments once he has made his inquiries.

Sir Bob Jones knows a few things about chucking out Governments. He helped throw out Labour in 1975 and also helped throw out National in 1984.

He may be a “rick prick” but he is not a Nat, having last voted National in 1981. Since then he has voted a mixture of Labour, ACT and NZ First.

So what does Sir Bob say on the Electoral Finance Act:

Wellington property tycoon Sir Bob Jones says he has had a “gutsful” of the Electoral Finance Act and he is thinking of testing it with an ad campaign against the Government.

But he is only allowed to place one single newspaper ad unless he registers with the Electoral Commission.

Sir Bob says robust political debate is now being stifled in this country and he has had enough.

This is something I am hearing more and more. The rules are so confusing and unclear, that people are deterred from engaging. And in fact even the parties and candidates themselves have been silenced as they are mainly petrified to spend any money until the last few weeks.

“I’m so overwhelmingly shocked that I should live to see such legislation in New Zealand. I mean, whatever happened to the free joyous participation in the political process.”

The chinless scarf wearers had to be silenced, along with anyone else who might spent money criticising the Government.

Sir Bob says he has not voted National since 1981, but he will be this time simply to punish the Government for the EFA.

He says elections used to be fun but everyone is now too scared to participate.

“This is the most despicable thing I think I have seen in my lifetime in this country, I really do, certainly by any Government… this overwhelms me. I cannot believe it happened.”

He is considering an anti-Government ad campaign to “flagrantly break the law and have them on”.

My goodness. A prosecution and trial of Sir Robert just before the election. That will be popular for the Government, won’t it.