Kiwiblog

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.

Tags: Bob Jones, Graeme Hart, John Key, NBR, Rich List, Vela Family

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…)

Tags: anonymous donations, Bob Jones, Brian Henry, hypocrisy, Judith Collins, Spencer Trust, Winston First

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.

Tags: anonymous donations, Bob Jones, Dominion Post, hypocrisy, Phil Kitchin, Winston First

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.

Tags: Bob Jones, Electoral Finance Act