Kiwiblog

Bob Jones writes in the NZ Herald regard the Coroner saying coke should have warning labels:

We read this sort of coroner guff frequently following unusual deaths in which, not content to simply do their job and officially state the cause of death, they instead ignore the extreme oddity of the circumstances and ascribe them to the community at large.

A circus elephant escapes, runs amok and tramples someone to death and the coroner will urge that the government makes us all build elephant-proof fences. A 158kg woman rolls over in bed in a drunken stupor and crushes to death her ex-jockey husband. This actually happened in Tasmania in the late 1980s.

Coroner Crear presumably would urge the government to ban jockeys and other small males sleeping with fat women, or alternatively, that fat women have a warning sign tattooed on their buttocks. In short, coroners too often fail to recognise freak accidents as simply that, namely freak.

Heh, so true.

Older readers will remember George Wilder who delighted us all with his prison escapes. Who can forget his escape from a Taranaki prison when the army was called in from Waiouru to assist prison officers and police searching for him on the central plateau where he had been spotted. Because they occasionally ran across hikers, at day’s end the searchers were shown a photo of George. “That bugger was here all day in the search party”, they all shouted, but too late, George had slipped off into the night.

George wasn’t publicly perceived as a villain, rather he was viewed as an addiction victim for his obsession with taking cars, riding about in them for half an hour then leaving them unharmed. He simply couldn’t stop himself despite endless court warnings. Coroner Crear would doubtless blame the car manufacturers and Professor Sellman would want cars added to the addictive substances list.

Highly likely! They always blame the company.

Sir Bob writes:

The role of Minister of Education has always been a nightmare posting. If you’re Minister of Agriculture then you’re subject to intelligent dialogue with Federated Farmers. If Justice Minister, you can wallow in the ego-inflating pleasure of issuing pompous utterances, interspersed with all-night drunken sessions with the Law Society, and so it goes.

But Minister of Education; God help the poor buggers, confronted as they always have been with embittered, self-important nobodies, as teacher union representatives invariably are.

Sir Bob continues:

Readers may consider I’m being too charitable with that description. Well, I can’t help it, temperance having been my life-long practice. But I’d be a great deal more if instead of endless moaning, the teachers’ union focused on promoting English, science and history and abandoned film studies, Maori wonderfulness, gender studies, et al bogus subjects, now so prevalent.

I’ve speculated why teacher unions are so ghastly when compared with other lobbying bodies. My conclusion is that they have never left the school-room or grown up and that if we resurrected corporal punishment and delivered a daily flogging to these unionists, it might produce a general amelioration.

Bob may need t be careful. If the PPTA affiliates to Labour, they’ll get a vote in the next Labour Leader, and in exchange for their votes may insist the next Leader brings in a hate crime law, so Sir Bob is jailed for hate speech against them

In 1991, I popped over to Georgia to have a look at proceedings when the civil war broke out. One night in Tbilisi, my wife and I were guests of some university academics in an outdoor restaurant near the river. Abruptly the night erupted with explosions and for half an hour, mortars rocketed over our heads from across the river. Our Georgian friends took a nonchalant approach to this. “Relax,” they said, “it’s just the school teachers’ union bombing Parliament,” this over some trivia they were whining about.

Heh. Probably a protest against league tables.

Anyway, after two weeks here and there, we arrived at our Blantyre hotel. At 6pm I turned on the television news. The lead item was the president of the Malawian Women’s Institute carrying on about school teachers having it off with schoolgirls.

She was followed by the Malawian school teachers’ association president.

Never have I witnessed such explosive anger. He was livid and I would describe him as being white with rage, but in the circumstances that would be pushing it.

“Do you realise how little my members are paid?” he shouted at the Women’s Institute president, who began to look remorseful.

“Are you demanding my members risk their lives with you Aids-ridden lot? This is the sole perk of the job,” he exploded

Well that is a novel rationale for a pay rise.

Bob Jones writes in the Herald:

 Defending the contentious asset sales policy, the Prime Minister argues he was open about his party’s intentions before the last election and thus has a mandate. The openness was commendable but not so his assumption. His party would still have won if it had also proposed publicly hanging the unemployed, which, mind you, when one quietly considers it, does have some merit.

I look forward to all the outraged comments that Jones advocating hanging beneficiaries.

After all, public hangings were immensely popular entertainments in Britain, drawing enormous crowds and in the process creating much happiness and gainful work, (hangmen for example) plus considerable food and beverage, manufacturing and purveying employment. The sole shortcoming with the public hanging industry though was its brevity.

This was resolved by introducing multiple successive hangings, thereby ensuring a decent day’s family outing and a corresponding greater demand for food and drinks. Learning from this, boxing promoters of the day introduced preliminary bouts; these multiple hangings and preliminary fights initiatives marking yet another giant stride forward in the march of civilisation.

Heh.

Our existing dams are monopolies, thanks to the greenies’ wrong assertion that they always damage the environment. They certainly can do, such as the ill-considered enormous Mekong dam planned by Laos, which likely will be stopped by the other Mekong nations. But in New Zealand? I don’t think so.

Rather than wreck the environment, they’ve enhanced it. Prior to the construction (despite the then massive public protest) of the huge South Island dams, the top end of the food chain in the rivers to be dammed were brown trout, averaging in weight at maturity, rarely more than 3lb. Today, Otago newspapers regularly show photos of anglers holding 15lb and upwards trout, caught from these dam-created lakes.

Have a chat to nymphs, cockabullies and the other diverse lake life, all the way up the food chain, and they’ll tell you they’re now living the life of Riley, having escaped the arduous river existence of their ancestors.

Additionally, the lakes have created yachting, boating, lakeside residences and other pluses. Nevertheless, as the greenies are currently in the policy ascendancy and people enjoying themselves always hugely upsets them, new dams are out.

I agree a dam can have many benefits. But I don’t think dams are monopolies. They compete with other dams and other sources of power. We have a competitive market and price for electricity – 400,000 people swapped provider last year. The ultimate proof.

What puzzles me is why the Government doesn’t sell TVNZ. The rationale for owning it was to ensure quality public broadcasting. It’s hardly debatable that TVNZ’s fare is, with few exceptions, a diet of populist trash, yet inexplicably, its one attempt to create a channel providing a degree of quality broadcasting it’s now closing.

TVNZ should be sold, and the capital used to fund a public broadcaster.

I blogged how Sir Bob Jones had proposed a lake in the Chch CBD, with businesses being allocated a shorefront location. At the time I said I liked the proposal, but wasn’t sure it was practical.

A reader e-mailed his brother who is a geological engineer. He commented:

In an area that is prone to liquefaction the last thing you want is have more ponded water in the form of a lake.  Lake edges are typically worst affected by lateral spreading induced by liquefaction, often 10s to 100s m back from the ponded water. To create an artificial lake in the Chch CBD you would have to dig a large hole in the ground to hold the water.  This allows the surrounding lake shore and adjacent land to move (expand) under strong earthquake shaking – to spread laterally into the lake. But If the ground is still in place you get a lot of cracking and water and silt ejection, but not much ground deformation.  Its the ground spreading, often accompanied by subsidence, that is most damaging to buildings.  The best way to stop this from happening is to lower the general ground water table, and create a ‘non-building buffer zone’ (of land) along the banks of rivers, canals, and around the shores of other bodies of water bodies  - not dig more holes in the ground and fill them with water !!

So sadly not practical.

The Press reports:

Outspoken property investor Sir Bob Jones says Christchurch should replace its former central business district with “a massive lake”.

Writing in this week’s The Listener, Jones urges the city to build on its “garden city” reputation and abandon thoughts of resurrecting a high-rise CBD.

Under its central-city proposal, Christchurch would replace its destroyed building stock – described by Gerry Brownlee as “old dungers” – with “new dungers”.

“Here’s the answer,” writes Jones.

The Government should use its powers to seize all the central-city sites and “create a massive irregular-shaped lake” on the destroyed CBD land.

He suggested each former CBD site owner be allocated a lakeside site, its size reflecting the former rating value.

“Along the lake edge could be sandy beaches, with rafts anchored offshore to swim to,” he says.

“Elsewhere, perhaps, could be deeper coves with fixed diving boards and waterslides.”

Jones also suggested introducing trout and white swans to the lake, with a rebuilt modern cathedral as its centrepiece.

He said the world’s best cities, such as Vancouver, Sydney and Hong Kong, were all sited around lakes or harbours and it was not unheard of to create one retrospectively.

You know, that’s possibly the best idea I’ve heard for the Christchurch CBD. It may not be practical but it is visionary.

I also liked Sir Bob’s vision for Wellington to make Lampton Quay into a vehicle free mall.

In my Herald column of 28 October I wrote:

Introducing the principle of means testing, is another very welcome step. I think it is wrong that we pay millionaires such as Sir Bob Jones, NZ Superannuation.

Sir Bob has e-mailed to comment:

Dear David,

Before using a photo of me to make your point you could have enquired whether I actually receive the Government super, which I have been eligible for over the past seven years.

The answer is I don’t. It is essentially a form of welfare which I absolutely don’t need.

That said I have been shocked at people of considerable wealth whom I know and who do take it.

Just possibly I am not just the only New Zealander who doesn’t have a cellphone but also the only eligible Kiwi who doesn’t take the super.

Best wishes,

 

Bob Jones

My thanks to Sir Bob for putting the record straight. In hindsight I am not surprised he doesn’t take it. I wonder how many others do not take it, whom are entitled to?

Bob Jones

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.