Kiwiblog

Submissions close at 5 pm Friday on the Government’s proposed electoral finance reform.

I have included below my submission.

I would urge as many people as possible, regardless of your views on political finance, to do a submission. The last Government did not allow you to say what you think the law should be, until after it introduced a bill into Parliament – by which time it is much harder to get changes. You have an opportunity here to have your say and influence policy before Cabinet makes final policy decisions.

This is especially so, in the areas where the Government has not yet indicated a preference, but has put a number of options.

You can e-mail a submission to this address. The Government’s electoral finance reform page is here, and a pdf of the proposal document is here.

If you don’t want a compulsory system of registration and limits for “parallel campaigners”, then make a submission – don’t complain about it later, if you don’t submit.

If you do not want a seven month regulated period, make a submission.

If you think political parties should be able to spend their own money on broadcasting advertisements, then make a submission.

Politicians have vested interests in electoral finance law. Some want state funding. Others want to cut off private funding to their opponents. Many don’t like citizens being able to spend their own money criticising them.

Regardless of your views on the issues, have your say. The more submissions people make, the better. They don’t have to be anywhere near as long as mine. You can just state your opinion on one or two issues such as should there be compulsory registration for parallel campaigners and the length of the regulated period with a paragraph or two backing up each issue.

Submission from David Farrar in response to the Government’s Electoral Finance Reform Proposal Document

Principles

1. The Government proposes that the following principles both guide the development of electoral finance law and be incorporated in the purpose section of the new legislation: clarity, equity, freedom of expression, participation, transparency, accountability, legitimacy.

I support the addition of the new principle of clarity.

I did not see a need for the principles to be incorporated into the Electoral Act itself, but if they are, they should not be relied on as a substitute to clarity in the legislation itself.

State Funding

The Government is consulting on three options for reform of the broadcasting regime in Part 6 of the Broadcasting Act 1989. Under each option, the Government does not propose to change the total amount of funding that was allocated to political parties at the 2008 general election ($3.21 million) or the arrangement where the total amount of funding is set by Parliamentary appropriation.

I would ask the Government to reconsider that the amount of funding be set by Parliamentary appropriation. This would allow a future Government to increase the funding with no public consultation and as part of a Budget which is effectively guaranteed to pass.

I believe the amount of funding should either be set by statute, and then inflation and population adjusted, or be set at a level recommended by the Electoral Commission.

Status quo option – parties can only spend funds on election broadcasting, and can not purchase any broadcasting advertisements with their own money

Moderate reform option – parties can spend funds on any election advertising, and can purchase broadcasting advertisements with their own money

Significant reform option – parties can spend funds on anything they like (including admin), and can purchase broadcasting advertisements with their own money

I strongly support the moderate reform option, specifically both the provision to allow parties to decide what mediums they advertise in, and the provision to allow a party to purchase broadcasting advertisements with their own money.

Taking the latter point first, I believe the current law is an unjustified restriction of access to the airwaves. A minor party gets a far smaller allocation than a major party, and the current law doesn’t allow them to use their own funds to match the major party. This is not a level playing field. The restriction on buying broadcasting advertisements is a legacy of the past, when it was a much more relatively powerful medium.

The current law also prevents a party that forms just before an election, not only missing out on a broadcasting allocation but they also lose the opportunity to have any advertising in broadcast media.

In terms of what the allocated amount can be spent on, I think the moderate reform is sensible. The significant reform option would introduce full taxpayer funding of political parties. This is not something with public support, and nor it is desirable or necessary. Even worst, the fact the allocation is done by parliamentary appropriation, would allow governing parties to easily vote their parties more funding.

The current taxpayer funding is provided to parties specifically for the purpose of communicating with voters at election time. I submit allowing the parties the flexibility of deciding what medium to spend it on, is sensible, so long as it is spent on election advertising.

Finally, in this section I would repeat a point I made in my earlier submission. Parliamentary parties have a huge advantage over parties not currently in Parliament. They receive considerable free media over the electoral cycle, have MPs working to promote them, and benefit from parliamentary staff and parliamentary budgets. It would be desirable to increase the amount of funding available for parties not in Parliament, and decrease the amount of funding for parties in Parliament due to their considerable advantage.

Parliamentary Service funding

The submissions received in response to the issues paper showed that opinions were divided on whether the relationship between Parliamentary Service funding and election advertising needed to be clarified and how this should be achieved.

The Parliamentary Service Commission is considering these issues as part of the process for developing a permanent definition of funding entitlements for parliamentary purposes in the Parliamentary Service Act 2000. In addition, the Speaker of the House has recently convened a cross-party committee that has developed a public disclosure regime for Parliamentary Service funding.

The Government proposes to ensure consistency between the Parliamentary Service Commission‟s work and the work undertaken as part of the electoral finance reform by raising the suggestions made in the submissions with this cross-party committee for further consideration.

I reiterate that the simple solution here is for the Parliamentary Service to not allow expenditure on advertising for MPs or parties during the regulated period.

MPs and incumbent parties already have a huge advantage. They should not be able to spend parliamentary budgets on advertising during the regulated period, and most of all any advertising they do undertake should be counted as an election expense unless it is totally mundane such as electorate office hours.

Private Donations

The Government proposes to retain the regime governing donations to constituency candidates and political parties that was developed as part of the Electoral Finance Act 2007, and now forms part of the Electoral Act 1993.

In my earlier submission, I advocated a number of changes such as repealing the ability to make anonymous donations through the Electoral Commission, lowering the level for anonymous donations to $100, requiring more frequent disclosure, and requiring a party to publish its total income from donations, in bands.

I still regard these changes as desirable.

However I note that the regime introduced in the Electoral Finance Act two years ago has not yet been through a full parliamentary cycle. I am comfortable with the proposal to make no significant changes at this time. After the 2011 election, the donations section of the law should be more fully reviewed to see if further changes are necessary. Many submitters have made the mistake of concluding the regime does not work due to the low level of disclosed donations in 2008. This overlooks that it is likely significant donations were made in 2007, prior to the law change. Only after we have had a full cycle (2009 – 2011) of donation disclosures, will we be well placed to judge what level of changes, if any, are needed.

Campaign Expenditure Limits

The Government proposes to increase the expenditure limits that apply to constituency candidates and political parties (the Government is seeking submissions on the level of expenditure limits that should apply) and that expenditure limits be adjusted every general election to keep pace with inflation through a formula set in legislation.

As previously submitted, the current expenditure limits have not even kept pace with inflation, and are set so low that they actually prevent candidates and parties from effectively communicating to electors.

Ideally I would like the limits to be based on the cost of an effective advertising campaign to 2.5 million adults for parties, and 40,000 adults for candidates. The Electoral Commission asked an ad agency to calculate such things for its advice on the Electoral Finance Bill, so this can easily done. An empirical approach to setting limits is far preferable to just debating numbers without a context of what they can purchase in terms of advertising effectiveness.

I would note that in an electorate campaign you would expect a candidate to be able to do at least two direct mail letters, a couple of unaddressed pamphlets, a series of ads in local newspapers, and 100+ hoardings. I believe a spend of $50,000 to $60,000 (excl GST) in the regulated period is necessary for a new candidate especially to achieve adequate name recognition and profile. A low spending limit protects incumbents.

I support having a formula set in legislation for future increases. I would submit that the formula should take account of both inflation and population growth. Much of today’s marketing is personalized direct mail, and every extra voter is an extra cost.

For electorates, in the absence of detailed empirical research,  I would submit the formula should be $1.20 per adult in the average electorate. The number of adults would be based on number of residents aged 18 or older in the last census, divided by the number of electorates.

So for example the 2006 census had 3,103,360 adults, which spread over 70 electorates is an average of 44,334. At $1.20 this would be a spending limit of $53,200 for the 2011 election.

If population growth remains steady the adult population in the next census would have 3,370,640 adults. If, as is likely, there are 72 electorates that is 46,814 per electorate. In inflation has been 2% a year from, then the limit would go from $1.20 in 2011 to $1.27 in 2014 for a total limit of $59,600.

The national limit of $2.4 million was set in the early 1990s. Since then inflation has been 27% and population growth 14%. Adjusting solely for that would suggest the limit should be a minimum $3.5 million. If one also adds in the maximum allocation given by the Electoral Commission for broadcasting, that suggests a limit of at least $4.6 million for a party (including the broadcasting allocation) contesting all 70 electorates.

If one takes the current formula of $1 million plus x per electorate, and keeps x the same as the electorate limit, this would be $1 million plus $53,200 per electorate (for the party vote) which would be $4,724,000 limit for 2011 – very close to what it would be inflation and population adjusted.

I would then inflation adjust the $1 million, and inflation and population adjust the amount per electorate.

Regulated Campaign Period Options

commencement on writ day (i.e. a likely regulated period of approximately four to five weeks)

commencement on 1 August in the third year of the election cycle (i.e. a likely regulated period of approximately three to four months depending on the date of the election)

commencement on 1 May in the third year of the election cycle (i.e. a likely regulated period of approximately five to six months depending on the date of the election)

retain the status quo where the regulated period commences three months before the date of the election.

I do not support the status quo. This means that no one knows when the regulated period starts, until the election date is announced, which is often after the start of the then retrospective regulated period. Certainty is welcome.

A regulated period commencing writ day has problems also. It gives the incumbent Government a significant advantage as they know in advance when Writ Day will be, and can tailor their spending around this.

The proposal to start on 1 August is supported. It has the benefit of a fixed date, known in advance, but also means a regulated period of around four months which is in keeping with the traditional length.

I do not support a 1 May start date, and would prefer the status quo to this. This would see regulated periods of around seven months and for a three year electoral cycle, this would be over the top – almost 20% of the cycle. It would also mean that the Budget would get caught up in the regulated period, and parties should be able to promote the budget, and respond to the budget, without it being deemed an election expense.

If there is an early or snap election, then the regulated period should start on writ day, to avoid retrospective application of the regulated period.

Election Advertising

I am not responding in detail to this section, as the devil will be in the detail. I am broadly supportive of the intention to exclude as advertisements:

news and comment published or broadcast by the news media
personal correspondence between private individuals,
low cost merchandise,
personal opinions published on the internet, and certain websites

The Government proposes that on every election advertisement promoters are required to disclose their true name and full street address and suburb or locality (not a PO Box number) of either their residential address, or an address at which the promoter can usually be contacted during the day. Promoters are not required to disclose a private home address if they choose not to.

I support the requirement for transparency, and also that a private home address need not be used. I would propose that a name alone is sufficient on advertisements, if the promoter is registered with the Electoral Commission and their full contact details can be accessed on their website. This would encourage more people to become promoters. They can still be contacted for reasons of transparency should people wish, but don’t have to have their address on billboards and pamphlets all over town.

Parallel Campaigning

I do not support the option to have a “proportionate” regulatory scheme for parallel campaigners. Introducing scheme a scheme will be deeply resented by many as MPs restricting the ability of citizens to spend their own money criticizing them.

There is no documented problem to be solved. The case of the Exclusive Brethren in 2005 is not rationale enough. First of all, their spending was largely deemed to be counter-productive. The public, aided, by the media can be trusted to make their own judgements about the appropriateness of a parallel campaign.

Secondly any parallel campaign limits, would not have necessarily prevented the Exclusive Brethren campaign. They could have had all seven spokespersons register and spent say $100,000 each.

Thirdly the experience in the United States of political finance reform, is that more regulated you make it, the more loopholes get exploited and the effects are counter-productive.

Fourthly the existence of any sort of compulsory registration system for people to spend money criticizing the Government, or other parties, can discourage citizens from political involvement. The Electoral Commission itself noted this, when they referred to the chilling effect on political participation from the former Electoral Finance Act.

Finally, any sort of limit could prevent groups with legitimate grievances from pursuing them against the Government, by campaigning against the governing party. Proponents of such regulations always cite the example of the Exclusive Brethren, and they are a group not many in society feel affinity for, so some may conclude they should not be allowed to spend their own money campaigning.

But take another scenario. What if the Crown confiscated land or property rights off an Iwi, as they have done in the past. That Iwi might want to campaign against the party in Government which stole their land or property rights. Do we believe it would be a good thing to prevent an Iwi from campaigning against a party that legislated away its rights?

This situation could fit the Foreshore & Seabed Act. What if an affected Iwi wanted to campaign against the parties that passed the Act? Bad enough, they have their rights legislated away from them, but even worse is they can’t spend their own money campaigning against the parties that did this.

The current debate over an Emissions Trading Scheme could see some Iwi lose hundreds of millions of dollars of value from their lands. I submit it would be wrong to stop an Iwi from campaigning against parties that it believed had destroyed so much of their value.

Advertising by parallel campaigners on radio and television

Currently parallel campaigners are not allowed to purchase advertising on broadcasters. The Government has put forward only two options – to retain the ban, or to allow parallel campaigners to advertise on broadcasters only if they are subject to registration and spending limits.

I do not support either of those options, and would like the Government to reconsider the option of allowing parallel campaigners (many also known as citizens) to be able to advertise on broadcast media, without any compulsory registration for parallel campaigners.

My next option would be for the Government to have a voluntary system of registration for parallel campaigners. It would have no threshold for registering, but would have an expenditure limit. As an incentive to voluntarily register, a parallel campaigner could then gain access to broadcast media advertising. This would be a strong incentive. It would allow campaigners who do not wish to register to still campaign in other media, but to agree to an expenditure limit if they do wish to advertise on broadcasters.

Other “carrots” for voluntary registration would be the ability to have the Electoral Commission pre-approve an advertisement.

Failing either of those two options, I would opt for the status quo rather than have compulsory registration for parallel campaigners over a certain threshold.

Electoral Administration

The new stand-alone electoral agency will be tasked with publishing guidance on electoral finance rules and providing advisory opinions to political parties, constituency candidates, and the general public on electoral finance law – including whether publications amount to an election advertisement.

I strongly support the creation of the new agency, and the ability to rule in advance whether or not a publication is an election advertisement.

The Government proposes to retain the offences and penalties regime and time limits currently in the Electoral Act 1993.

A major weakness of the Act is that only individuals can be held responsible. Time and time again we see parties escape prosecution by blaming things on lapses between individuals. I would advocate that the penalties regime should include provision for a party itself to be held liable for breaches. Without this, the law remains somewhat toothless.

NZPA report:

Insurance companies which stood to gain from the privatisation of ACC could have made donations to National’s election campaign and no one would ever know, Labour MP David Parker said in Parliament today.

Mr Parker did not say the insurance companies had donated, his point was that because most donations don’t have to be disclosed it wasn’t possible to know one way or the other.

Except he is wrong. Donations over $10,000 do have to be declared. This represents around 0.2% of total election spending by a party.

He was speaking during the first reading debate on the Electoral (Administration) Bill, which puts the agencies responsible for running elections under a single authority.

I hope he spent some time talking about the actual bill, rather than on matters not covered in the bill.

Mr Parker said Labour and National both spent $2.2 million on their campaigns during last year’s election.

Labour disclosed the source of donations worth a total $422,000 and National $130,000.

The level at which donations have to be disclosed is $10,000. Any donations below that remain anonymous.

No they are not anonymous – they are not disclosed. There is a significant difference.

Mr Parker argued the threshold should be $1000.

“Before the election, Merrill Lynch said if ACC was privatised…there would be $2 billion of ACC levies up for grabs and $200 million of additional profit could be earned by Australian insurers,” he said.

Hmmn so in this fantasy world, the insurers will gain $200 million of profits for a less than $10,000 donation. Sure.

If Mr Parker thinks donations buy policies, may be he could explain the $100,000 Labour got from the Vela family a few days before the election.

“We all know that the private insurers stand to gain from the privatisation of ACC. There’s no doubt about that. But what we don’t know is whether those same private insurers were contributing to the National Party.

Yes you do. You know they did not donate more than $10,000.

“I can never prove that they were, but it is wrong for our democracy to be tainted by that accusation.

This is so funny. He invents the smear, and then says it is wrong for the smear to exist.

Mr Parker said the lack of transparency around donations was “a glaring problem” in the electoral system.

In case anyone has forgotten, the laws around donations are exactly those passed by Labour just two years ago.

Just going to respond to press releases from Labour and the Greens on electoral finance reform. Now to some degree it is no surprise they disagree with some of the details in the proposal document. But it is useful to put their comments into context and recent history.

First Labour’s David Parker:

The Government is happy to consult on aspects of electoral law reform that suits it, and won’t look at changes to the donations regime that might disadvantage National, says Labour Electoral Reform Spokesperson David Parker.

First of all I must point out the Government in which Mr Parker served did no consultation on electoral law reform prior to introducing legislation. Yep, zero zip.

Mr Power has consulted all parties over the issues paper, consulted the public on the issues paper and is now giving both parties and the public an opportunity to give feedback on the proposal paper.

So the hypocrisy from Mr Parker is immense. It is also wrong.

The Electoral Finance Reform Proposal issued by Justice Minister Simon Power today shows he is determined to retain the regime governing donations to constituency candidates and political parties even though it became clear at the last election that the rules do not achieve transparency, David Parker said.

Mr Parker does not seem to know what a multi-stage consultation process is. That is because Labour never did them.

The first stage was the issues paper where people could havetheir say on issues, without any idea of the Government’s thinking.

The second stage is the proposal paper, where the Government says this is what we think should happen, but we want your feedback. In some cases they identify options.

The Government has said it proposes no change to the donations law, and the public and parties can give feedback on that before they make a final decision. That is consultation – again Mr Parker may be unfamiliar with the concept.

“Unfortunately, the current regime on donations doesn’t promote transparency. Labour included the regime in good faith in the Electoral Finance Act 2007, but it failed to achieve its purpose.

This is worth stressing. The regime Mr Parker is so bitterly complaining about is one his party passed into law less than two years ago.  Now how about the claim it has failed to get transparency:

“This was shown by the low rates of disclosure by both major parties. National disclosed the source of just $130,000 in donations and Labour just $420,000, though both spent more than $2 million each. This is clearly not transparent.”

Mr Parker is having 2+2=5. He is like the cop who demands tougher powers to search premises, and upon not finding any drugs there, cites it as proof they must be elsewhere and wants even greater powers.

The intent of the donations disclosure regime is to identify the source of any donations that could be large enough to be though to purchase influence. Personally I reckon you need $50,000 before you start to get inflluence but the the law for the last 15 years or so has been set at the lower limit of $10,000. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument to break the privacy of supporters who gives say $1,000 considering that represents 0.02% of a party’s election spending. Even $10,000 is (for a major party) only 0.2% of a party’s election spending.

Even putting aside that argument, how about the complaint that very few donations were declared in 2008. Well there is a very obvious reasons for that. Many donations normally made in election year, were made in 2007 before the increased transparency (which I supported) requirements came in.

In other words if Mr Parker is patient enough to wait until the next election, he may find a higher level of donations disclosed.

Incidentially I do favour some tightening of the limits. I advocated getting rid of the provision for parties to received up to $240,000  in anonymous donations through the Electoral Commission. Mr Parker does not support getting rid of that, I believe.

I also think a disclosure level over a three year term, not just annually, should also be introduced. But that is a debate for another day.

David Parker said Labour strongly believed there should be public comment on potential improvements to the existing disclosure regime.

“But while the proposal paper seeks submissions on other issues, National has clearly already made up its mind on the donations regime because it suits their purposes.”

There are a number of areas where I intend to submit against the Government’s proposed option. That is the whole pointof seeking feedback on a proposal paper.

Finally I must point out how Labour responded when there was real proof of inappropriate donations. The Serious Fraud Office revealed that the Foreign and Racing Minister in the Labour-led Government had received tens of thousands of dollars in personal donations (to pay his court costs) from a source in the racing industry which had greatly benefited by the Minister’s advocacy of extra funding for the industry.

What did Labour do when the SFO revealed this? They complained bitterly about the actions of the SFO. ANd what did then PM Clark say in response to questions in the house? She said she had not had the time to read the report.

So in case anyone thinks there is anything remotely sincere about Labour’s position, think again.

Then we have Metiria Turei:

Metiria of course voted for the EFA and voted against abolishing it. The Greens never used their power to force Labour to consult on the EFB before it was introduced. Their credibility on these issues is much dented after that.

“It is vital that New Zealand’s democracy cannot be bought by big business.

Funnily enough if you look at the spending at the last election campaign, there was masses of spending by lots of unions but no spending from any businesses or business groups. The only purchasing of democracy has been from the left.

But the whole notion of “purchasing” democracy is bumper slogan politics, rather than rational analysis. The relationship between the amount a party spends and the vote they get is pretty weak. As an example Labour spent more than National last election and got whacked. ACT spent more than the Greens and got under half the vote.

“One of our key concerns is that National’s proposals will not stop political parties secretly giving money to third parties to run campaigns,” said Mrs Turei.

Now we get the paranoia. First they worry about third parties donating to political parties, but now they are worried about political parties having so much money they will give it away to third parties to spend.

I’ve yet to meet a political party that gives away its money. Do the Greens have any examples of when this has happened?

If a third party runs expensive ads in a campaign, I am sure the media will ask who is behind that third party, and where did the money come from. And if the third party refuses to say, well the public are pretty good with this stuff, and will tend to punish those involved.

In the 2005 election, the Exclusive Brethren ran a secret $1 million dollar campaign against the Green Party.

From their own money. Or is Metiria saying she thinks National were secretly funding the Exclusive Brethren?

“Another problem is that donations to political parties under $10,000 can be kept secret – the public has a right to know who is giving their MPs money.

Yes, but at what level. As I said $10,000 is 0.2% of an election campaign for a major party and maybe 0.5% for a minor party. Are the Greens saying you can get “favours” for such a small amount?

The Greens of course have an agenda. They find raising money a hassle, as do all parties. They think taxpayers should be forced to fund their political party. And the best way of doing that is setting the disclosure threshold for donations so low, that fewer people donate voluntarily so they can force everyone to donate to them compulsorily through their taxes.

“We are also concerned about the proposal to allow anyone to run electoral ads on TV and radio, as this would lead to the airways being saturated in electoral ads paid for by wealthy special interest groups,” said Mrs Turei.

Consider what they are really saying here. They are saying that in an election campaign, they do not want anyone who wants to criticise a party, to be able to do so through a broadcast medium. They are saying that only political parties should be able to have their voices heard on broadcast medium. Even worse they are saying that only political parties funded by the taxpayer can have their voice heard, while individuals or organisation who want to use their own funds, are banned from the airwaves.

Such defenders of free speech.

“We don’t want to end up like the US where negative campaign ads paid for by big business dominate the airways.”

Ironically almost everything the Greens propose takes us closer to the US system of political finance. It is the limit on donations to parties and candidates that has shifted the spending to the lobby groups.

Oh and their constant bogeyman of big business is tiresome. Again in NZ there were no business funded election ads, but plenty of union ones. And in the US last election the left massively outspent the right.

Again it would be nice to see some sensible analysis rather than slogans.

The Government’s proposals do not include the option of a fixed election date.

A fixed date would provide certainty for the public and political parties, said Mrs Turei, there is no good reason not to have one. The only reason not to fix the election date was to give an advantage to the Government of the day.

Now I agree with Metiria that there should be a fixed election date. But to be fair to the Govt, this is a consultation on finance issues, not wider electoral issues. A change to a fixed election date is a fairly major constitutional issue. It is one I support but probably needs its own workstream.

Labour have put online their 41 page submission on electoral finance laws. I have three general points to make on it, and then will go into lots of detail.

1. They have backed away significantly from their position on the provisions of the Electoral Finance Act, and are not supporting limits on third party expenditure etc or having the regulated period last all year.
2. Most of what they argue for is reasonably self serving – it is what is good for Labour. In my submission I have argued for many things which I doubt National would find desirable (such as banning anonymous donations over $100 and requiring parties to published audited accounts). So Labour’s submission should be regarded very much as an affected party. That does not mean their arguments have no value.
3. They make many assertions without evidence or proof. An example if their call for state funding when the evidence of 2008 is that it is not needed as both National and Labour raised enough money privately to spend to the limit.

Now into details.

Election rules should not advantage one party over another, nor should they place inequitable barriers to the formation and entry of new parties into Parliament.

Labour claim this, but the actual details of their submission do not match this. Current parliamentary parties have a huge advantage over those not in Parliament yet Labour proposes they be given even more additional state resources and further that parties not in Parliament be banned from purchasing broadcasting time.

Voter registration is one barrier to participation. From 2002 voters have been able to register up till the day before an election, and this has been an important step in improving participation. However, given that voter registration is compulsory, it should also be available on election day itself provided the normal statutory criteria for residence are met.

Good God. Never before have I heard voter registration be called a barrier to participation. That is like calling school enrolment a barrier to eduction.

Recent New Zealand political history has seen a number of occasions where significant sums provided to political parties across the spectrum have raised questions about their purpose in relation to the purchase of influence.

Yes the most recent was the revelation by the Serious Fraud Office that certain racing interests had personally paids debts on behalf of the Racing Minister in Helen Clark’s Government. Labour slammed the SFO for revealing this, and Helen Clark said she would not read the SFO evidence as she had better things to do.

This gives you some idea of how genuinely concerned Labour is by corporate influence in politics.

To better ensure transparency, the threshold for declaration of donations should be reduced to $1000 for both constituency candidates and for political parties.

The argument outlined in the Issues Paper that lower thresholds would be an unjustifiable imposition on freedom of speech is weak and contrary to the principle of transparency. It confuses the right to say what you think with the right to buy policy outcomes without disclosing your interest.

This is an example of Labour failing to back up their assertions with a shred of evidence. What evidence do they have that the current $10,000 limit allows people to buy policy outcomes? Are they speaking from experience?

They need to justify why the disclosure level should be lowered from $10,000 to $1,000.  In other words why should someone not be able to privately donate $1,500? Do they seriously assert you can buy policies or MPs for say $1,500?

$1,000 represents around 0.05% of a major party’s total election year expenditure. Are Labour really saying funding 0.05% of annual expenditure gets influence?

I’m not saying that $10,000 is the perfect limit – but I want a rational reason why why donors who give less than that should sacrifice their privacy?

The current provisions on protected anonymous donations should remain.

This is very self serving of Labour. Having railed against big undisclosed donations, they now say they want to continue the regime where a major donor can give $36,000 to them anonymously through the Electoral Commission. I advocate there should be no anonymous donations (above a minor level such as $100) as it is near impossible to prove or disprove that the party doesn’t actually get to know who donated the money. The protected anonymous donations regime should bs scrapped.

So everyone should remember this – Labour’s official position is to allow for $240,000 of anonymous donations per political party. They are for anonymous donations – not against them.

Overseas donations should be banned completely (except for New Zealand citizens, residents or voters for the time being overseas).

I have no problems with donations from any legal source, so long as they are disclosed if significant. It is ironic that we will accept $127 million donation of art work from Julian Robertson, but claim it is corruption if he donates $1,100 to a party. People can care about New Zealand without being citizens.

But having said that, I’m not greatly fussed either way. However if one is to ban overseas donations – ban all of them – can anyone not on the electoral roll(and over 18) from donating.

There should there be a limit on donations from a single source of $100,000 over a three year period. This limit should be inflation adjusted every three years.

This is from the party that took $500,000 from Owen Glenn. Think that would be their position if he still liked them?

Again Labour fail to make a case for their preference. What is the harm done by someone openly donating $120,000 (say $40,000 a year) to their preferred party. Transparency is crucial, and these should be publicly disclosed so the public can decide on whether or not they have a problem with said donations. Trust the public I say.

If Greenpeace International wanted to donate $150,000 to the Green Party, I would say let them. We should all know about it – so we can decide what we think that means in terms of desirability of supporting the Greens.

Political parties should be required to provide annual audited accounts with itemised categories of donations income so that actual income can be compared with declared donations.

Now this one I agree on, and in fact am very pleased to see Labour advocating it. After the NZ First funding revelations I concluded some sort of audited accounts with donations grouped by size is desirable. I only want the names of those who donate more than $10,000 (as that is level influence may be a factor) but it would be useful to see how many donations between say $1,000 and $10,000 are received. This allows the public to decide if (for example) NZ First’s claims of being all funded by cake stalls was the reality or not.

In election year, donations received by a party after its last annual return to the Electoral Commission should be publicly declared through the Commission on a regular basis after they are received, and up to and during the regulated election period.

This is one issue I forgot to cover in my submission. I actually think donations should be declared monthly during the whole three yearly cycle, and weekly or daily during the last month – we should know about donations when they are made, and always in advance of an election.

So I agree with Labour here, but think they do not go far enough.

The Labour Party believes that the corollary of tightened controls on private funding of political parties – with the greater disclosure and compliance requirements involved – is some provision of public funds for political parties.

Again Labour have failed to prove there is a problem. The Electoral Finance Act brought in much tighter controls on donations, yet both Labour and National spent to the limit. Both were able to raise all the money they needed privately.

Labour want state funding on the basis, there *may* be a problem in the future with inadequate private funding. Not good enough. The 2008 election has shown that there was no shortage of private funding, and Labour’s attempt to gain (even greater) state funding is sheer opportunism.

Both the registered party and parliamentary party contribute to the formation of policy on which the voters base their choice. The accountability provisions in the Electoral Act also devolve to the registered extra-parliamentary party.

Public funding would contribute to the independence of the extra-parliamentary party by providing a balance and the avoidance of parliamentary capture.

This is hogwash. The opposite is the case. One of the few accountabilities that the main party has over the parliamentary party is that they raise the money. This is why parliamentary parties suffer consequences if they ignore their membership.

You bring in state funding, and it allows the parliamentary party to marginalise even further the organisational party.

In our view, a base level of public funding should be available to parties who meet the statutory criteria of 500 members and contesting seats in Parliament. Currently the only available form of public funding for such parties is provided through the Broadcasting Act 1989, which on its own is clearly insufficient.

Parties outside Parliament are massively disadvantaged. But giving Labour $800,000 a year and the Alliance $2,000 a year is not going to change that – in fact it will make it far worse.

My proposal to help parties outside Parliament, is that the broadcasting allocation be restricted to non parliamentary parties only. The parties in Parliament get three years of broadcasting exposure through the media for free.

Broadcast advertising is the primary means that wealth-based electoral systems use to influence opinion.

What decade are they in? How many people even watch TV ads now? Heard of My Sky. Broadcast advertising is no longer as dominant as it once was.

The limitation of broadcast advertising to allocated public funds is an excellent feature of New Zealand’s political system and should be retained.

Far from being excellent, it is a travesty. If a party registers late in the piece they are banned from broadcast advertising. The current rules not only give National and Labour more money for broadcast advertising – but they ban the other parties from being able to spend as much as them with their own money. This is not a level playing field – it is one that favours the two main parties massively.

It may be preferable for the cost of the time allocation to be added to the broadcasting allocation and the time allocation discontinued and replaced with funding that can be used to buy time as best suits the parties. This would allow for freer use by political parties of the resource for broadcast advertising.

Here I agree. But again the hypocrisy – they are saying a party should not be allowed to (for example) spent $50,000 less on billboards and $50,000 more on radio advertising but they are saying parties should have freer use of broadcast advertising. Inconsistent.

Political parties should not be able to purchase broadcasting time with their own resources. This will only serve to advantage parties with access to money.

Nonsense so long as you still have an overall spending limit. The current law gives National and Labour a bigger spending limit that all the other parties as they can’t purchase broadcasting time beyond the allocation. This is about protecting Labour’s statutory advantage.

It must be made clear in the Electoral Act that no spending authorised for parliamentary purposes by Parliamentary Service rules can be counted as election expenses under the Electoral Act.

And this is what they tried to do with the Electoral Finance Act. They want to have the pledge card not count as an election expense. They want to be able to spend say $1.5 million in the final week of the election on “parliamentary publications” and not have it count as an election expense.

I go the opposite direction. During the regulated period, there should be a ban on parliamentary funding of advertising except essential advertising such as office hours.

You see what I mean about how self serving Labour’s submission is. They want to keep their anonymous donations. They want more state funding. They want to stop competitors from buying broadcasting time and they want to be able to spend thir parliamentary budget as late as they like durign an election campaign and not have it count as an expense.

The current limits for constituency candidates ($20,000) and political parties (a maximum of $2.4 million, if all electorates are contested) should be retained but be inflation adjusted (from the 2008 limits as a base) before the 2011 election.

Again Labour make assertions with no emperical basis to them. Mr argument is that the spending limits should be set high enough to allow an affective communication with the public, yet below the level at which you may be seen as “drowning out” others.

$20,000 is totally inadequate for being able to communicate with 45,000 voters. It doesn’t even allow one direct mail letter.

The 1996 limits should at a minimum be adjusted for inflation and population growth. Ideally though, as I submitted, there should eb an attempt to actually calculate what is a reasonable or desirable amount of communication from candidates and parties, cost it and then set the limit high enough to allow that. Don’t guess at what the limit should be – calculate it.

The extension of the regulated period in the Electoral Finance Act to the beginning of the calendar year in which an election takes place added greatly to compliance requirements.

And whose idea was that? Credit I suppose for admitting it was a disaster.

Considering the pattern of the last 25 years, a reasonable fixed date for the start of the regulated period would be 1 May of election year.

I am not against a fixed start date but 1 May is far too early. You have not even had the budget by then. I like the proposal of 90 days before the term of Parliament expires – which will be a known date. If a fixed date I would never go earlier than 1 July.

Provision would need to be made for where a particularly early election was called. We suggest that in the case of an election date being announced earlier than 30 April, the regulated period begin the day after the announcement.

Yes, The regulated period should never be retrospective.

The atomistic redefinition in the Electoral Finance Act (section 5) of “any form of words or graphics, or both” proved problematic.

And we warned against it.

The true name and address of those who promote election advertising should be disclosed.

Yes, but this need not be on the advertisement. The Electoral Commission could have on its website contact details for political parties, candidates, and registered third parties.

Where the third party campaign is issue based and does not seek to promote a vote for or against a particular party or candidate, we do not propose any spending cap but do propose transparency above, say, $100,000 of spending.

This is a better position than the EFA. Transparency is key I agree.

However they seemed to have not covered what rules should apply to advertisements against a party or candidate? Are they sayign these should be banned?

I think everyone accepts you can’t advertise urging a vote for National without National’s permission. But what say you wish to advocate people do not vote for ACT? Are Labour saying this should be banned?

Consequently, parallel campaigners should be regulated if they propose to spend over a specified threshold, say $100,000. They should be required to register with the Electoral Commission, and a list of all such parallel campaigners should be made public, as should their donors.

As I said this is an improvement on the EFA.

The financial agent provisions from Electoral Finance Act should be
reinstated – accountability is only possible if responsibility is clearly
defined.

I tend to agree. But I also worry that parties often get off the hook by claiming x did this without y knowing, so hence no prosecution. This helped get Labour off the pledge card. I propose that parties themselves can also be held liable for breaches. So if they have crummy systems which leads too a breach, they get pinged.

Consideration should be given to reforming and amalgamating the electoral oversight agencies, and giving the oversight agency power to obtain further information about parties’ accounts. This is especially the case if additional state funding is made available to registered parties.

Amalgamation is well overdue.

The role of the Police should be retained for prosecution referrals.

No no no no no do. They don’t want the job. They don’t dedicate sufficient resource to it. They don’t have the expertise and in 2005 especially they made some appalling decisions.

Wow this is a long post. I am looking forward to the pubishing of the other submissions, or a summary of them.

I was hoping to blog this over the last week but got too busy so have had to write it all in the last 36 hours.

Anyway for those interested my submission is here – electoral-finance-reform-submission-form-final-dpf.

The very high level summary of what I advoctaed is:

1. Agree with six principles but under equity makes it “manifestly unfair” rather than merely unfair. Also add 7th principle of simplicity.
2. Ban all anonymous donations (except those under $100 as not practical to record every cent), and abolish protected donations regime through Electoral Commission.
3. Retain transparency and disclosure of donations through an intermediary such as a trust.
4. Proposed disclosure threshold for donations remain at $10,000/year but also require disclosure if donations exceed $25,000 over a three year electoral cycle.
5. No limit on donations from a single source.
6. Donation levels should be inflation adjusted.
7. No restriction on who can donate, so long as significant donations are disclosed.
8. Against any additional public funding of parties or their campaigns
9. Would ban all advertising from parliamentary or Government funds during the regulated period, except essential advertising approved by Auditor-General.
10. Restrict the current broadcasting allocation to parties not in Parliament as parties in Parliament already have a massive advantage with their media profile, their MPs, their parliamentary staff and their parliamentary budgets. Suggest $200,000 per non parliamentary party be allowed.
11. Political parties (and third parties) should be allowed to purchase their own broadcasting time and advertisements.
12. TVNZ and RNZ should not be required to give away free broadcast time for party broadcasts.
13. Advocate new additional transparency requirements for political parties – that they report a summary of all donations received by band – ie x donations from $0 to $100, y donations from $101 to $1,000, z donations from $1,001 to $10,000  etc. This will allow an overall picture of how a party is funded and would have exposed the false imagine NZ First portrayed as solely funded by cake stalls etc.
14. Campaign spending limits should be based on emperical evidance of what amount of money is needed to effectively communicate with all voters. Suggest $50,000 for electorate campaigns and $5 million for party campaigns. Note this includes the broadcasting allocation so effectively moves the limit from $3.5 million to $5.0 million – which is what it would be anyway if it had been inflation and population adjusted from 1996 when last set.
15. Spending levels should be inflation and population adjusted.
16. Would like a fixed election date and regulated period to start 90 days before that. If not possible, then have regulated period start 90 days befroe expiry of the House or on a fixed date such as 1 September. Must not have a retrospective regulated period.
17. Have a narrow definition of election advertisement so it does not capture personal communication of views etc.
18. Generally exempt communications on the Internet as this is information people seek out. Exception is paid advertising on the Internet.
19. Require advertisements to be authorised but allow names and addresses to be listed on Electoral Commission website.
20. Have a voluntary registration regime and spending limit for third parties or parallel campaigners. Provide incentives for third parties to register – such as binding rulings on advertisements, but not make it compulsory as experience of EFA is this is hugely resented.
21. Suggest threshold for registration (if compulsory) is $50,000
22. Spending limit (preferably voluntary) to be 20% of a party’s limit or $1 million.
23. Combine electoral agencies and let them take cases direct to Court without Police.
24. Allow electoral agency to give binding rulings like the IRD
25. Also allow agency to impose automatic fines for minor breaches such as late returns.

The Ministry of Justice will pubish a summary of submissions in the near future and in August a proposals paper. Will be very interested to see them.

I have been amazed at how many people have jumped to wild and wrong conclusions about “loopholes” with donations disclosure because the level of donations disclosed is less than the level of spending disclosed.

Parties are not obliged to list all income. This is not a loophole – it is a deliberate design. They are only obliged to list donations abover $10,000 – the level at which it is though influence might be purchased.

Personally I am interested in the notion of whether or not a party should disclose its total income in bands (such as x donations over $10K, y donations between $1k and $10K, and z donations under $1k) but this would be a radical change to our current laws.

Anyway let us first look at what the ODT says:

The general election last year was the only one in our history to be conducted under the mysterious fog of the Electoral Finance Act, a piece of legislation brought in by the Clark government at the behest of the Green Party as an exercise in forcing disclosure of funding sources, and in hope of nobbling political opponents, but which no-one – least of all its architects – fully understood.

The intention indeed was to silence the critics. And the Greens remains supporters of the oppressive law which made it illegal to say “I don’t support the Green Party” on a non-blog website unless you disclosed your name and address.

The distance between what the major parties spent on their election campaigns and what they listed in their donations returns is so great as to suggest sufficient loopholes still existed to legally exploit.

It is not a loophole. For example National receives between $1 and $2 million a year in small donations from its 40,000 or so members. That is not some bad thing exploiting a loophole – that is a good thing.

Likewise what could well be the case with many parties is that they received many donations at just below the disclosure limit. Parliament has said we only need to know your identity if you give over $10,000. So it is not surprising many donors then give under $10,000.

The commentators who call this a loophole reveal an ignorance of the law. It has never been a law to disclose all income – political parties are in fact private bodies. It has been a law to reveal large donations over a certain limit.

So complaining that donations revealed does not match expenditure revealed is like complaining that your household expenses are larger than the interest from your investments – and overlooking yur salary. They are not comparing apples and oranges.

The EFA also supposedly prevented secret trusts from making large donations without declaring the source, but herein lies a conundrum: there was nothing to prevent one entity making many donations which were under the $10,000 disclosure barrier.

Yes there is. The ODT does not understand the law. All donations from a source are totalled up. You can not avoid the $10,000 disclosure barrier by say giving $5,000 a month.

There are some loopholes to the donations regime – such as different companies with the same shareholders all donating – but that is not the same loophole as the ODT claims above.

The need for transparency is the one aspect of the EFA which must be retained when the cross-party committee eventually reaches its recommendations.

That means all donors to parties should be named, and that what constitutes electoral advertising is clearly defined, including publicity by a government in office during an electoral campaign.

I hope they don’t mean all donors. Forcing parties to reveal every $50 donor will effectively out tens of thousands of party supporters and infringe their right to privately support the party of their choice. The disclosure level should be at the level of which infleunce could be suspected by the size of the donations.

Just saw a story on NewstalkZB about Labour breaching the EFA with undisclosed donations:

Mike Smith, Labour’s party secretary, admits failing to disclose $25,000 from Meatworkers Union; says omission was an oversight Labour acknowledges it made a mistake in the filing of its donations ahead of last year’s elections.

Labour’s Secretary Mike Smith says he is personally responsible for failing to disclose donations totaling $25,500 from three branches of the New Zealand Meatworkers Union. He says the omission was an oversight and is in breach of the Electoral Act which requires that donations from the same donor of more than $20,000 be declared. The donations should have been declared last year.

The incident follows other instances of Labour being found to have breached the laws under the now-scrapped Electoral Finance Act.

The parties that have breached the law the most often are Labour, Progressives, Greens and NZ First – the very ones that voted for it.

The Electoral Commission has published the list of “big” donations each party received in 2008, big being over $10,000 in value. So which parties got the most big money?

1. Labour got $431,917 in big donations. Their biggest individual donor was the Vela Family who gave them $100k. The unions gave $117,500 and individuals (mainly from arts/culture sector) gave $134,830. Also a total of $60,000 from corporates and lobby groups, $10,587 from Helen Clark and $9,000 anonymously through the Electoral Commission.
2. ACT got $315,906 in big donations. John Boscawen gave $101,000, Alan Gibbs $200,000 and $14,906 from Virtual Bucket Ltd!
3. National got less than half as much as Labour in big donations. They got $207,001. John Key put in $30,000, some other individuals $30,001, $70,000 from corporates and a lobby group, and $77,000 anonymously through the Electoral Commission.
4. Greens were 4th largest for total big donations on $184,693. These were all individual donations with MPs putting in 70,725 and others $114,238.
5. NZ First got (assuming this return is accurate – the last three years were not) $111,999. The Velas gave $100,000 to their favourite boy and Sir Patrick Hogan also gave his thanks with $11,999.
6. The Family Party had $88,044. Destiny Church handed over $10,926, Paul Adams $41,037 and an Elias Kanaris $36,081

National’s level of “big” donations is very small. Part of that will be that some gave in 2007 (2011 will be interesting) but part is that the vast majority of National’s revenue comes from smaller donations. The members alone contribute between $1.5 and $2.0 million a year in small donations I would estimate.

Also somewhat amusingly, NZ First broke the law – again! They received a $2,190 donation from a foreigner on 22 October 2008. As it exceeds $1,000 it has to be paid to the Electoral Commission within 20 working days. They only paid it over on 12 December 2008.

Labour also received an overseas donations in excess of $1,000. They got $10,000 which they had to give up.

Just had another look at the Electoral Commission page of donations over $20,000 to political parties. By now any pre-election donations must have been declared. So how much did each party receive in large (over $20k) donations?

1. ACT $300,000 (Alan Gibbs $200K, John Boscawen $100k)
2. Greens $182,926 (various)
3. Labour $160,000 (Velas $100K, EPMU $60k)
4. NZ First $100,000 (Velas $60k)
5. National $60,000 (John Key $30k, Road Transport Trust $30k)

And almost every large donations is from an individual who is a known supporter. Well plus the Velas whose generosity to Labour was previously unknown.

But just remember these declarations the next time people go on about big money. National had the 5th largest amount of declared over $20k donations.

Of course this is not the full picture. National did receive a lot of money through trusts prior to 2008, but that is all history now. Also there are the anonymous donations through the Electoral Commission – but as it is a serious offence to inform a party you have donated that way, there can be no suspicion of favours for donations. Also in May next year we’ll see any donations over $10K and under $20K that were made.

The week before the election saw the Velas donate $200,000 to Labour First, or more formally $100,000 each to the constituent Labour and NZ First parties.

The donation was made on 31 October. The EPMU also donated $60,000 that day. Labour revealed the EPMU donation on 5 November, but held off revealing the Vela donations until after the election. They were able to do this legally as you have two weeks to declare large donations.

This reinforces to me the need for a Commission of Inquiry into the matters alleged in the Meurant papers. I hope the Greens keep pushing for it, and that the new Government agrees.

The EPMU has announced its donations:

• $60,000 to Labour
• $5,000 to Greens
• $4,000 to Maori Party
• $1,000 to Progressives

This makes the EPMU the third biggest donor in this election, to date.

Roger Kerr commented on yesterday’s blog post about big money on politics. I think this is Roger’s first comment on a blog post!

Roger made a few observations:

(i) Representative business organisations today typically take a national interest perspective, not a narrow, self-interested business perspective as in Fortress New Zealand days. The rationale is that what’s good for New Zealand is good for business in the long run, not the other way round. (Of course whether their advocacy conforms with that perspective should always be open to challenge.)

Thankfully it has been a long-time since business groups have demanded special favours for this sector, or that sector.

(ii) Consistent with (i), they routinely both support and criticise policy positions taken by all political parties.

Indeed, and groups like Business NZ have worked closely with the Labour Government on many issues – some might even say too closely!

(iii) It’s hard to fathom why some unions (eg EPMU) are so overtly partisan. Can this really be in the interests of their members? Governments change, as they should in a healthy democracy. How can they expect a sympathetic hearing for their members’ interests when they have publicly campaigned against a party that ends up in government?

Well the EPMU is a member of the Labour Party and hence can only be partisan. It does raise the question of how should a National-led Government deal with unions who have said their job is to get National kicked out of office regardless of what their policies are.

And as amusing as I find the CTU ads, I do wonder about the wisdom of being quite so partisan, that their influence with a new Government could be greatly reduced.

(iv) Unions in other countries seem less partisan and more willing to criticise the policies of ‘their’ parties, eg US unions in manufacturing industries on climate change issues.

Yes, some of the Australian unions also have been critical of ALP policies.

(v) Donations by corporates now seem to be very small, and are often split between parties.

So far the largest reported donation to National is $30,000. And I agree they are split between parties.

(vi) It would appear that the largest reported donation to a political party in recent years from a business source was that by Mr Owen Glenn to the Labour Party.

$500,000 to Labour plus $100,000 interest free loan plus $100,000 to Winston’s legal fees.

(vii) The most blatant case of business cash-for-favours in recent years would appear to be from racing industry sources to New Zealand First, whose leader Winston Peters has railed against ‘big business’ influence on politics.

I’m not sure ironic covers this situation adequately. I’m not even sure gross hypocrisy covers it.

The Government did not use to give money to the racing industry like they now do. Before Helen appointed Winston Minister of Racing, Vote Racing was just $300,000 a year which paid for a couple of policy people in the Department of Internal Affairs.

He then introduced a number of policies that were of great benefit to the racing industry, and to companies active in the industry. I’ll take them in turn:

Aligning duty rates

The New Zealand Racing Board used to pay duty at around 18% and Winston got the rate reduced in the 2006 budget to 4% which is the rate paid by casinos. The cost of this is $33.6 million a year.

Now this policy was not opposed by Treasury. They said it was good policy, and I think National even supported this move. It did seem silly to have different rates. Having said that there is a difference between supporting a policy because you think it is a good policy, and supporting a policy because you think it will attract money from the affected industry or are in their pocket.

Accelerated depreciation for bloodstock

In the 2006 budget, Winston also proposed accelerating the depreciation period for purchases by New Zealand taxpayers of stallions that have not previously been used for breeding in New Zealand at a cost of up to $1.5 million per annum.

Treasury also supported this.

Further depreciation for bloodstock

Winston then tried to get accelerated depreciation extended to shuttle stallions in 2007. Treasury said:

Treasury does not support funding for this initiative, as it is low priority and represents low value for money. The depreciation rate for shuttle stallions is already concessionary relative to their economic life, and approving the request would represent an even greater concession. Furthermore, the depreciation rate for shuttle stallions should be lower than that for stallions not previously used in New Zealand, as the latter have a higher risk profile. Approving the request may also increase the risk of tax avoidance and set a precedent for wider extensions.

Further, there is also a risk that approving the request could increase the risk of these assets being used in tax avoidance schemes. In the 1980s there were significant tax avoidance schemes incorporating inflated values for bloodstock, which took advantage of the accelerated write-down rates available. In addition, approving the request may set a precedent for further extensions to the new depreciation rules.

But Dr Cullen ignored his officials to keep Winston happy so he could deliver to his funders. The cost for this was an extra $1.5 million a year also.

Racecourse Facilities

In the 2007 budget, Winston started to really deliver directly for his funders. He got Helen and Michael to agree to $1 million a year for the establishment of a contestable fund to enhance workplace safety and to raise the quality of facilities at racecourses.

You might wonder why we do not have a Vote Skiing to raise the quality of facilities on ski fields and improve skifield safety?

Again the officials were not convinced. Treasury showed they were not against all spending – they supported the accelerated depreciation and the reduction in duty. Treasury said:

Treasury does not support funding for this initiative, as it is low priority and represents questionable value for money. In particular, it is unclear as to the extent of under-maintenance of racing facilities and why clubs cannot raise sufficient revenue for improvements on their own, e.g. through increased entry fees, sponsorship and community fund-raising.

There is little information provided beyond the anecdotal about the extent of under-maintenance of racing facilities and why racing clubs cannot raise sufficient revenue for improvements on their own, e.g. through increased entry fees, sponsorship or community fund-raising. This makes it difficult to gauge the potential value for money of the proposed contestable fund

But once again Michael and Helen gave Winston his baubles.

Race Money

Then came the most outrageous policy for his benefactors. The Government would stump up millions of dollars every year to be used as prize money in races or to quote the proposal “the establishment of a fund to promote feature horse and greyhound racing carnivals and to increase stake money in feature races”.

And again Treasury tried their best to stop Winston looting taxpayer money to pay back his financial backers. But again Michael and Helen agreed to back Winston and gave him $3 million a year.

Treasury does not support funding for this initiative, as it is low priority and represents questionable value for money. In particular, there is insufficient supporting information around why and to what extent racing clubs are unable to generate sufficient revenue through traditional sources, or the extent to which feature race stakes need to be bolstered to increase the racing industry’s profile and encourage greater investment. There would also be potential precedent implications across other industries from creating such a fund.

So how much does this all total up to? Well over a three year electoral cycle it is $121.8 million.

That’s what you call a good return on investment for $250,000 or so of donations.

Personally I think Winston sold himself too cheap.

Just seen an additional story in the Dom Post. The timeline. Damning. And remember as you read this, Helen has personally granted permission for Peters to keep the $40,000 the Velas gifted him. Some extracts:

October 5 report: Mr Meurant records that Mr Vela met Mr Peters and indicated a promise of a board appointment on a state-owned enterprise.

December 1 report: Mr Meurant says Mr Peters is devastated by the party’s loss in the November elections. He tells Mr Vela that, if Mr Peters or Doug Woolerton ask for the promised $30,000, he should tell them they had agreed to put Mr Meurant on a government corporation board but could not deliver on that now.

Nor could NZ First get its policies that Mr Vela liked introduced. Remind them it had been agreed that Mr Meurant would head NZ First’s research unit on a taxpayer salary.

Tell them: “I have delivered. Two lots of 10 grand and the provision of a helicopter. I think it is time for you to produce something engage him [Mr Meurant] as your research manager.” Mr Meurant says: “If Winston does engage me, I still want to work for you and will give your projects priority.”

December 10: Mr Meurant writes to Mr Peters applying for NZ First policy adviser job (and sends a job application copy to Mr Vela). He says Mr Peters suggested a salary of $60,000 with a “top-up” from the private sector, which he has found. He says he will obtain donations for NZ First and suggests he be responsible for policy development in fishing and thoroughbred industries and “taxation”.

He says he will rebuild NZ First as a “sector interest (ie fishing, thoroughbred) party” and obtain corporate funding by producing “industry sector-friendly policies”. “Providing NZ First reflects the concerns of the sector groups it targets, financial contributions from the corporate groups will be forthcoming.

“Deliver on what you promise and the corporates I have exposure to will stay with you.” He tells Mr Peters to start with the commercial fishing and racing industries.

And he did deliver – once Helen Clark appointed him Minister of Racing.

The integrity of decision making in the Clark/Peters Government has been seriously undermined by two stories in the Dominion Post today. Firstly from the first story:

Money was paid to NZ First through former National MP Ross Meurant – who later accepted a job as a policy adviser to Mr Peters, private papers obtained by The Dominion Post show.

Mr Meurant brokered donations from Philip Vela, a senior member of the wealthy Vela family, before the 1999 election, when NZ First was in a coalition government with National, and after that time.

Mr Vela was told by Mr Meurant that he would have an opportunity to frame friendly policy in business areas to which Mr Vela was connected. The Vela family, worth an estimated $180 million, is involved in the fishing and horse racing industries.

So these documents detail the understanding that the Velas would donate to NZ First and in return have the opportunity to frame friendly policy in business areas of interest to them.

Some documents have parliamentary letterheads and include notes from a meeting at which Mr Peters said he had saved Vela interests “millions in tax liability”.

And in return they have donated hundreds of thousands it seems.

At the centre of the saga is Mr Meurant, who worked for Mr Vela and then worked as an adviser to Mr Peters from 2000 to 2004. In this job he received a taxpayer-funded salary – but he also sought a “top-up” from the corporate sector, including from Vela interests.

Mr Meurant told Mr Vela that he had “direct access” to Mr Peters “at all times”. His work included “major input” into Mr Peters’ speeches and he was “principally responsible for policy development in fishing and thoroughbred industries and `taxation’,” the documents show.

OK let us be clear on this. The staff member who wrote the party’s fishing, racing and taxation policies was being paid directly by corporates who happened to benefit from those fishing, racing and taxation policies.

When The Dominion Post revealed the scale of Vela donations to NZ First in July, Mr Peters said the money had no bearing on his party’s racing policy, which he said was written in 1993.

NZ First sources said the policy was introduced in 2006 – after Mr Peters successfully sought the racing minister portfolio in a support deal with Labour – and was substantially written by Mr Meurant while he was advising Mr Peters.

The Dominion Post revealed in July that the Vela family has donated at least $150,000 to NZ First or the Spencer Trust.

It is also worth remembering that $40,000 of that money paid off Winston’s debt to Bob Clarkson. This happened while Peters served as a Minister on Helen Clark’s Government. He needed her express permission to keep this donation. By not refusing permission Clark stands implicated as condoning this.

A box of documents sent to the newspaper this week shows that Vela interests made donations to NZ First as early as 1999. Mr Meurant suggested to Mr Vela that this provided the opportunity to give “input” into policy areas in which the family had business interests.

Mr Meurant sought money from Vela interests to travel as required in his taxpayer-paid job to liaise with Mr Peters, and for when he was “required to provide NZ First with material for debates in Parliament”.

He wanted help from Mr Vela “when required to show my face in Parliament to thrash out policy positions which I will have already developed with your people on taxation, fishing, thoroughbred with Winston’s bunch”.

The relationships between the Velas, Meurant and Peters sounds extraordinary. These documents make it sound like NZ First was the political arm of the Velas business empire.

In their second story:

Winston Peters repeatedly demanded that the Vela family provide him with a free helicopter to use for campaigning during the 1999 election, documents show.

And what if they did not obey?

On October 28 and 29, Mr Peters called Mr Meurant wanting the helicopter, the documents show. They include a transcript Mr Meurant made of the second call.

Mr Peters: Meurant, tell those bastards I need a helicopter. Don’t give me this crap about the machine needing repairs.

Mr Meurant: Come on, Winston, he has offered you his pilot. That’s a grand a week … he has personal reasons for not giving you his machine. He socialises with people who hate you.

Mr Peters: You gotta do better than that, Meurant. Don’t these people know how dangerous I can be [laughs]. [Mr Peters then says something to effect of Mr Vela having been saved millions in tax liability by Mr Peters.]

“Don’t these people know how dangerous I can be?” Sounds like a scene from the Godfather.

Mr Meurant: Come on, he is the only guy to give you funding.

Mr Peters: I have other funding. Don’t you worry about that.

But I thought Winston knew nothing about funding issues?

In December, after NZ First’s poor election showing, Mr Meurant advised Mr Vela to tell Mr Peters: “I have delivered. Two lots of 10 grand and the provision of a helicopter … it is time for you to produce something … make good on your commitment on Ross and engage him as your research manager.”

Which Winston then did.

Now remember that not only has Helen Clark not sacked Winston for any of his multiple misdeeds to date, she has explicitly said she will have him back in Government if NZ First makes it. Never mind the overwhelming evidence that he solicited the $100,000 from Owen Glenn, lied about it, and tried to get Glenn made Consul. Never mind the personal and party donations from the Velas and these documents showing the influence on policy it gained them.

Are there any people of conscience left on the left who think that putting Peters back into power would be a betrayal of everything they have railed against when it comes to money and politics? If so, how can you be voting Labour?

And once again the Greens refuse to say anything stronger than “we would have problems working with Winston” using the excuse their members would decide their bottom lines. That doesn’t stop them going much stronger and saying “The Greens Caucus has resolved to unanimously recommend to our members that we will not give confidence and supply to any Government that has Winston Peters in it”. They are keeping their options open because they will happily trade all their lofty rhetoric over political donations for some baubles of their own. By refusing to rule Peters out as strongly as they can, the Greens will be hypocrites if they ever try to lecture on political finance again.

John Key has ruled out Peters in Government. No ifs and no buts. As individual voters we can not affect whether or not 5% of the population will vote for NZ First and put Peters back into Parliament. But you can affect whether or not he gets to be a Minister again, by voting only for National, ACT or United Future. Any other vote may put Peters back into the Ministry.

The NZ Herald reports:

A Chinese man granted citizenship against the advice of officials and wanted in his homeland for “large-scale misappropriation and embezzlement” was given a VIP citizenship ceremony at Parliament.

Yang Liu, also known as Bill Liu, was granted his citizenship in August by ministerial prerogative.

He became a New Zealander at a private citizenship ceremony in the Maori Affairs select committee room, officiated over by Labour MP and former Cabinet minister Dover Samuels.

And who is Yang Liu?. The latest TGIF from Ian Wishart reveals:

His real name, confirmed for the first time in this country by TGIF Edition, is indeed Yongming Yan

Even worse, an informant resource report to the Immigration Service last year, but apparently ignored by Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones, provides detailed information on Yan’s involvement at the head of an Asian organised crime syndicate, which “paid large cash sums to various ministers and delegates indirectly through secret anonymous accounts

Now whether this is correct or not is one issue. But what is not in dispute (it seems) is that Shane Jones knew of these allegations, as the were part of the file officials had who fought against citizenship. So why did Jones ignore this?

Tonight, TGIF Edition can also reveal that one of Yongming’s former associates in this country – Shane Phillips – was a Labour Party campaign manager, and his brother Daniel Phillips works in the office of Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones – the man who gave ‘Bill Liu’ citizenship against the recommendations of officials who’d investigated his background.

Shane Phillips is also known as Shane Te Pou, and in 2000 Helen Clark vetoed his appointment to a ministerial job. Also:

There are fresh allegations this week, including that ‘Liu’ (in reality, Yan Yongming) may have donated cash to the campaigns of Rick Barker and Dover Samuels.

And Wishart has unearthed some interesting aspects of donations to Dover Samuels:

A further $5,000 was given to Dover Samuels by the oddly-named ‘Tamaki ki te Paki Wu’, apparently residing at a house in Derrimore Heights in Manukau City.

So, according to the official documents, two separate Wu’s slipped a total of eight grand between them into the Dover Samuels campaign fund. But who was this mysterious Mr Tamaki Wu? A check of the Manukau address Dover had given for him provides an added twist to this story: it was registered not to Mr Wu but to Daniel Phillips – Dover’s former private secretary now working for Associate Immigration Minister Shane Jones. So $5,000 had come to Dover from the address of a man whose brother was involved with Chinese
businessman ‘Yang Liu’ (real name Yan Yongming), yet the money was not in Daniel Phillips’ name, but a person or entity named Tamaki Wu.

There is also a suggestion that an anonymous $5,000 donation to Rick Barker was from Yan.

The issues raised here can not be dealt with by a departmental inquiry. Departments can not investigate their own Ministers. A fully empowered commission of inquiry should be set up to investigate this. The key tasks should be

1. To verify the real identity of the man granted citizenship by Labour Ministers over the protests of officials
2. Does he have a criminal record, and what is the nature of that
3. Determine the full extent of his donations to all parties and candidates
4. Why Ministers both refused to revoke his residency and further granted him citizenship against the strong advice of officials

The Electoral Commission has done three things in response to NZ First’s 2007 donations return:

1. It has found the party secretary did not break the law with the 2007 donations return, but is not releasing the full decision as it may compromise the police investigation. They EC point out carefully “The determination is in respect of the actions of the Party Secretary for New Zealand First only, as considered under Part 6 of the Electoral Act.” This suggests that others are under investigation by the Police.
2. It has published amended returns for 2007 showing $80,000 of donations from the Spencer Trust. At this stage amended returns for 2005 and 2006 have not been published or possibly even received.
3. It has published a letter from the NZ First Auditor, Nick Kosoof.

No (1) is not a big surprise. The party administrators tended to be kept ignorant of the Spencer Trust. Both the Party President and the Party Deputy Leader have said they were unaware the Spencer Trust even existed.  So I guess the Party Secretary was also unaware of it.

The letter from Kosoof is interesting. He says:

We were advised that the sums totally $80,000 paid to the Spencer Trust were paid not for the credit of that trust but for the credit of the NZ First Party, and were received by the Spencer Trust as an agent for the NZ First Party. As each of the component parts of that sum were from different entities and each was $10,000 or under, they did not require to be returned under the Electoral Act 1993.

This raises many questions:

1. Who advised Kosoof of this?
2. Did he have access to the Spencer Trust accounts to verify that each component part was under $10,000?
3. Did he seek any legal advice on the situation or just take the word of the organisation he audits?

I wonder if NZ First wll file amended returns for 2005 and 2006? I suspect they may choose not to, even though they have acknowledged the 2005 return was false. The EC doesn’t actually have the power to force them to do this.

The Electoral Commission has updated its register of big donors – those who have given over $20,000 in the last 12 months. The donors in size are:

1. ACT – Alan Gibbs – $100,000
2. ACT – John Boscawen – $100,000
3. Greens – Stuart Bramhall – $57,276
4. Greens – Christopher Marshall – $44,571
5. Greens – Jeanette Fitzsimons – $34,611
6. National – John Key – $30,000
7. National – Road Transport Trust – $30,000
8. Greens – Sue Kedgley – $21,792
9. Greens – Bryan Forde – $24,750

Interesting that along with ACT, the Greens are the party of big money – not just small $50 donations. That is $180,000 they have had in from just five donors. They are fortunate to have such wealthy party members.

The NZ First funding scandal got me interested in the overall picture of declared donations and expenses for our major political parties. More specifically I was interested in the linkages between declared donations and declared election expenses.

I had no expectation that there would be 100% correlation. Because a party generates much income that isn’t declared – only donations over $10,000 tend to be. And likewise only campaign expenses are declared, not the total costs of running the party.

But do most of the parties have some consistent ratio of declared donations to declared campaign expenses? Did any party have a very low ratio which might suggest a deliberate strategy to (legally) conceal large donations by breaking them into bits or having them never put through the party’s accounts?

Now it is important to stress that it is not bad per se to have income from non declared sources. National for example brings in up to $1 million a year just from membership subscriptions and donations. That is a good thing.

Now to the data, which is taken from the Electoral Commission website. Records only started in 1996. I have excluded 1996 as we don’t have donation returns for the full 1994 – 1996 period (law was only changed in 1995). So I have covered the periods 1997 – 99, 2000- 02, 2003 – 05 and 2006 – 2008. We don’t yet have expense returns for 2008 but I have included 2008 as we now have continous disclosure for amounts of over $20,000. This means everyone’s ratio is higher than would normally be the case, but as I am looking at the differences between them, it isn’t a huge factor. I wanted it to be as up to date as possible.

The Maori Party have only had expense returns for one election, so they are artifically high. If you exclude post 2005 their ratio is 52%.

National and Labour are very close to each other. If you exclude post 2005 elections National are at 80% and Labour 67%.

The Alliance is the only non current party in there. I included them as they are probably the closest to NZ First as a larger third party. Over the last three elections they have both spent similar amounts – $884K for the Alliance and $827K for NZ First. And during that time the Alliance has declared $711K of donations (including donations to Democrats when they were part of Alliance).

Then in order we have the Greens, United, Progressive and ACT at 54%, 47%, 42% and 35% respectively. A reasonable degree of difference, but all within that one third to one half range.

Finally we have NZ First. Since 1997 they have declared $827K of expenses but declared only $45,000 of large donations – a ratio of 5% – just 1/7th of the next lowest party ACT at 35%.

So what conclusions can one draw from this? Well remember the data is not complete. But there would seem to be two main conclusions one can draw – but competing conclusions. They are:

1. That NZ First is the only party that has never ever attracted large donors. That they are entirely funded by small donors and have had only one quarter as many large donations as the miniscule Progressive Party and one sixteeneth as many large donations as the Alliance.

   OR

2. That since 1997 NZ First has had a deliberate strategy of concealing large donations by means such as having had them broken up into smaller parcels, or channelling them through associated trusts who do not pass them onto the party but spend them at the discretion of the unknown trustees.

I will leave it to readers to decide which conclusion they think is most likely.

There is an explosive story in the NZ Herald, with confirmation directly from Own Glenn that he did donate to NZ First – despite Winston Peters denying it, and NZ First filing a donations return which said it received no donation over $10,000.

There must be an inquiry into this. The e-mail from Owen Glenn to his PR agent is prima facae evidence of a serious breach of the Electoral Act and Electoral Finance Act. This has to be investigated to determine the true facts. If the Electoral Commission does not have the powers to investigate, then it should be referred to the Police who do. Arguably the involvement of MPs could make it an issue for the Serious Fraud Office.

The authorities should demand copies of financial records for NZ First, to determine whether any laws have broken. They should also interview Mr Glenn, his PR agent and key NZ First officials.

Other political leaders should insist this matter be investigated. Helen Clark and John Key need to put aside their desire to keep WInston happy in case they need him post-election and call for the facts to be fully investigated by a competent authority. All of Helen Clark’s calls for transparency in political funding will be hollow and hypocriticial if she refuses to comment or call for action on this.

Now having said that it must be investigated, it is possible no laws have been broken. Let us look firstly at what we do know:

1. Owen Glenn has donated to NZ First
2. NZ First has filed a return saying that they received no donation over $10,000 in 2007
3. Owen Glenn has sought the role of Honorary Consul to Monaco, and has met Winston Peters to discuss this
4. The then NZ First President Dail Jones say they received a donation in December 2006 which was between $10,000 and $100,000 – and more at the upper end

Now is it possible these can all be reconciled? Possibly – but with difficulty.

First of all it is in theory possible that Owen Glenn did donate but donated less than $10,000, thus not needing to be disclosed.

Secondly it is possible he donated up to $20,000 – $10,000 in 2006 and $10,000 in 2007.

Thirdly it is possible his donation was treated as an interest free loan. The interest waived would be under the $10,000 donation threshold.

I have long suspected scenario three. However for it to be a loan not a donation there would need to be documents supporting this and dated at the time the money was paid. I am unsure you can retrospectively convert a donation to a loan after publicity about it leaks out. Also the e-mail from Glenn talks about donating or giving money – not loaning it.

NZ First may well have an explanation for the conflicting statements. But it will have to do better than Winston holding up a “No” sign at a press conference. The e-mail from Glenn is primae facae evidence of a breach of the Electoral Finance Act and it can’t be ignored.

I also refer people to the NZ Herald article from 29 February:

Asked if he was saying he had never received one dollar from Owen Glenn or any associate of Mr Glenn, he hauls a sign out from under his table.

“NO”, it read.

“Got that?” Mr Peters asked. “N-O. To every one of the allegations you have made.”

The word “No” made frequent appearances. Every now and then a variation was given. A question of whether NZ First ever asked for money from Mr Glenn drew an “Oh, get lost”.

And also:

Q: Has [Glenn] ever offered you money?

A: “No.”

Have you ever asked for it?

“Oh, get lost, Barry.”

Have you ever asked for it?

“We don’t go and ask anybody for money. That’s a fact.”

Has he ever loaned you money?

“In those two nos you get a third no if you put your mind to it.”

So Winston said Owen Glenn never offered money and they never asked for it yet Owen Glenn says he did give money. And Winston also appears to have ruled out a loan.

I blogged serveral weeks ago that it appeared the Greens had broken the Electoral Finance Act by not disclosing donations in time.

The Electoral Commission has let them off by accepting their explanation that a temporary administrator was unaware of the requirements for continuous disclosure if aggregated donations from an individual exceed $20,000, and that this was a “reasonable excuse”.

I’m not convinced that having your acting party administrator unaware of the law is a reasonable excuse. Especially from a party that spent months and months campaigning on the need for better donation disclosure laws.

Issues I would have asked if I was the Electoral Commission are whether the Party had provided a written guide to the acting administrator as to his or her duties. It is a standard practice to have a list of duties which include legal obligations. Just saying “Whoops forgot to mention that” isn’t good practice.

The continuous disclosure requirement is well publicised on the Electoral Commission website, and in material provided by the Commission.

NZ First has now filed its 2007 donation return, and have declared no donations over $10,000.

1. Why did it take four and a half months to file a zero return?
2. Why did NZ First break the law and refuse to file on time, saying the Leader had to be in the country before they filed, when it is a zero return?
3. As Party President Dail Jones claimed they received a close to $100,000 donation in December 2007, what is the explanation? Did Jones imagine the bank statement showing the deposit or did he confuse it with something else?
4. Could the mysterious amount received in December 2007 now be classified as an interest free loan, not a donation?
5. Who is the Party Official and the Auditor that signed off the donation return?
6. As Owen Glenn has refused to deny he has assisted NZ First, should one assume he has not assisted NZ First, or that any donation was under $10,000 or that it was an interest free loan?
7. Is the reason NZ First has not paid back the $158,000 it owes because they had to refund a large donation?
8. How did they raise $158,000 without any large donations? Lots of bingo evenings?
9. When will NZ First reveal the charities they claim to be donating the $158,000 to or are we expected to just take their word for it?
10. Again, why did it take four and a half months to file a nil donation return?

1. Why has Steve Maharey not resigned as MP for Palmerston North, now he can do so without triggering a by-election? Does anyone think you can be Vice-Chancellor and an MP?
2. Has NZ First paid back its $158,000 yet?
3. Have United Future finished paying back the money it owes to Parliamentary Service?
4. Why have NZ First and ACT not yet filed their 2007 donations return, 16 days after the deadline?
5. Would Rod Donald have approved of manipulating MMP rules so that Russel Norman becomes an MP (scheduled for end of the month) with less than 30 house sitting days before the election? Is this not just an outrageous rort to allow Russel to use taxpayer funds to travel around the country for the campaign?
6. Why would Labour’s website not list a single candidate who has been selected of the election? Is it because that is the only way they can get the taxpayer to fund 100% of it. Should Labour pay me for listing their candidates for them?
7. If Winston is back in NZ now, why hasn’t any journalist asked him why they have broken the law by refusing to file their donations return, and why does it need the party leader to file a donations return?
8. Has the Crown Law Office yet decided whether a balloon is an election advertisement?
9. How big a mistake was it for Dr Cullen to cancel in last year’s budget the tax cuts he promised in 2005?
10. How much damage did that conference song on John Key do to Labour? Was it more or less than the global economic slowdown?

UPDATE: For (4) The Electoral Commission has now received and published the ACT and NZ First returns.

The Greens have disclosed a large donation from Bryan Forde, but appear to have done so later than required, and also broken the law.

Forde appears to be an Audiologist in Invercargill and he donated $300 in May 2007 and $20,000 on 3 April 2008. A further $4,450 was donated on 28 April 2008.

Now as at 3 April 2008 he had donated $20,300 over a 1 month period. s54 of the Electoral Finance Act says:

54(2) says:

Every financial agent must file with the Electoral Commission a return in respect of every party donation that—

(a) the financial agent knows is from a donor who in the 12 months immediately preceding the date of receipt of the donation (the last 12 months) has made 1 or more previous donations; and

(b) when aggregated with all previous donations received from the donor in the last 12 months exceeds $20,000.

54(6) also:

A return must be filed under subsection (1) or (2) within 10 working days of the donation being received by the financial agent.

Now the Greens were required to file a return within 10 working days, which was Thursday 17 April 2008. The Electoral Commission say they will publish them within three working days so if it went up today it appears to have only been filed on or after Tuesday 29 April 2008. That would suggest the Greens were 12 days late with disclosing the aggregated donation.

Curious minds may like to inquire as to why they appeared to have broken the law they so passionately defended and insisted on. Also why does a donor make an additional $4,450 donation a few weeks after a $20,000 donation?

The Electoral Commission must prosecute (or ask Police to do so) NZ First, and sadly probably ACT, for their late donation returns. A failure to do undermines the law.

There are some situations where prosecution for a late return is not warranted. Parties that didn’t make it into Parliament I would treat somewhat more leniently. They have no MPs, probably no office and no staff and probably no donations.

Likewise if the return is simply a nil return, then again I would not be so worried.

And if the return is just one or even two days late, not the end of the world. However the 30 April deadline is four months after the time period they cover, so there is little excuse for lack of time.

ACT appear to have simply been tardy and say it is with the Auditor.  They really should be asking some hard questions of the person responsible for the tardiness, because it might get them into court.

NZ First’s situation is far worse. They are simply refusing to comply with the law, saying they can’t file their return until their Party Leader is back in NZ on the 16th of May. This is totally unacceptable to say the least, for the following reasons:

1. This is a simple compliance task. The Party Secretary just fills in the form stating how many donations over $10,000 they got and who they were from. It is not rocket science. There is no role for a party leader in this task.
2. The suspicion is they do not wish to file until Winston is here to handle any media spin on their donations return. Again totally totally unacceptable. Statutory deadlines are not there to be ignored for the benefit of media management.
3. It is in the public record that there has been wildly contrasting accounts from the (former) President and the Leader regarding a large anonymous donation in December 2007. The former says they got one and the latter says no they did not. This makes the official audited donations return of even greater public interest.

If the Electoral Commission do not prosecute NZ First especially (I think they should also prosecute ACT, but they at least do not appear to be deliberately flouting the law) then what incentive is there for the parties that do comply with the Electoral Act and Electoral Finance Act?