2. GERRY BROWNLEE (National—Ilam) Link to this
to the Minister of Justice
Does she stand by her statement that “greater transparency about the sources of political funding will lead to increasing public confidence in our democracy.”?
Hon ANNETTE KINGIs it Government policy that a party should be able to solicit and collect a $25,000 donation, yet not declare any such donation in its returns to the Electoral Commission?
It is Government policy, with the changes in the Electoral Finance Act, that there be greater transparency. But I think this Parliament ought to know the real rort that has been going on here. The real rort is the National Party, which cashed up every penny it had before 31 December, cleaned out its trust accounts, cleaned out its anonymous donations, and cleaned out every piece of money it could get its hands on—and we have the evidence for it: “Nats call in their secret donations”—
No, in fact it came from the press gallery, which that member bases all his arguments in this House on. They transferred it to the National Party, and now there is no accountability as to where that money came from, what trust it came from, whether it was from the Exclusive Brethren, or whether it was from the fishing industry, the insurance industry, or the tobacco industry. The money went into the account to rort the Electoral Finance Act. That is the real scandal of this House.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The Minister appears to have forgotten what my question was, and she has gone on to her prepared answer, which is, of course, only able to be given because the National Party does say which trusts it gets money from—unlike New Zealand First. [ Interruption]
Madam SPEAKERIt is not us that have those hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of donations, like the Labour Party has. Is the Minister concerned that Sir Robert Jones has confirmed this morning that he paid $25,000 as a donation to New Zealand First as a party in 2005, but that New Zealand First returns to the Electoral Commission in 2005 and 2006 list no such donation; and if she is not concerned about that, how would her lack of concern line up with her stated desire to bring transparency and increased public confidence to political party funding?
That would certainly be a matter for other authorities, not me. However, the Electoral Finance Act does ensure that there is greater transparency. But, of course, if one rorts the system before the Act comes in, as the National Party did, then one can be assured that lots of things are hidden. The Waitemata Trust, for example, handed over $424,000 just before the end of the calendar year, and the Ruahine Trust handed over $69,000, as National scooped up every piece of money it could. [ Interruption] The member said that at least National knows what the trusts are. Well, nobody knows who the trustees of the Waitemata Trust are. Only one Mr Robert Brown, a longstanding business associate of National campaign strategist Murray McCully—
Yes, there is a speech. What is more, it is all available in the newspaper, because nobody is hiding anything. I take this opportunity outside of the normal range of questions to seek leave to table documents to show that Labour took $230,000 in donations from trusts in 2007 prior to the Electoral Finance Act.
I seek leave to table an article by Ruth Laugesen, which shows that the National Party called in secret donations by Judy Kirk, who asked anonymous donors to put the money in before—
R Doug WoolertonDoes the Minister agree that there is a huge difference between trust accounts that were set up many years ago, and have channelled millions of dollars to the National Party, and the present situation of smears, innuendo, and false allegations levelled against New Zealand First?
In my view, what the National Party is trying to do is hide its own activities by highlighting stories out of the media, which is what I have just been accused of doing. National has no other evidence than what it reads in the media, and on the basis of that it is attacking the New Zealand First Party to cover up its own shabby, dirty behaviour before the end of the financial year.
I interrupt the flow of the Minister’s answer for a further seeking of leave, because I think it will help the Minister’s answers. I seek leave to table a transcript of Bob Jones saying this morning that he gave the money to New Zealand First and now wants to know where it went.
Sue BradfordWill the Speaker, in the light of concerns over donations to both New Zealand First and National, now support a Green Party amendment to the Electoral Finance Act proposing that only those who give very small donations should have their names left undisclosed to the public?
The Prime Minister has made it clear that the Labour Party would support getting rid of all anonymous donations, with State funding of political parties. That is a much cleaner approach.
Is the Minister concerned by the fact that the New Zealand First leader, Winston Peters, received $100,000 from overseas billionaire Owen Glenn, and that Mr Peters and New Zealand First failed to declare that funding on official returns while Mr Peters has been considering a diplomatic appointment for Mr Glenn?
My understanding—and there have been many questions in the House this week on it—is that Mr Peters did not receive that money.
Dr Russel NormanDoes the Minister agree that the use of the Waitemata Trust by the National Party to hide the identity of donors was reprehensible, but does she also agree that New Zealand First’s failing even to declare the existence of the Spencer Trust is just as bad?
I know little or nothing of the Spencer Trust, but I certainly know a lot about the Waitemata Trust, because a lot of work has been done to show just what a sneaky little vehicle it is—controlled and managed by Mr Browne, along with Mr McCully, to hide its donations from people like the Exclusive Brethren. I think any questions about the Spencer Trust would have to be directed to New Zealand First.
When the Minister said she did not know that Mr Peters had received a $100,000 donation, had she not heard the Prime Minister yesterday acknowledging that he had, and saying that he does not have to give it back?
Does the Minister think the recent revelations about the undisclosed funding given to New Zealand First undermine the integrity of Labour’s Electoral Finance Act, given that New Zealand First was one of its most vehement supporters; if not, why not?
What has made the whole system a lot more transparent, going forward, is the Electoral Finance Act. I am really interested that this member asking the question is now very interested in transparency, but during the debate on the very bill, he opposed the bill.
Rodney HideHow can there be any confidence in New Zealand’s democracy, when an overseas billionaire pays off Winston Peters’ legal bill to the tune of $100,000 while seeking an honorary consulship, and Bob Jones gives Winston Peters $25,000 that disappears into his brother’s trust account; and is not the real corruption the fact that Helen Clark refuses to investigate this money because she needs the vote of New Zealand First?
No. If the member used the word “corruption”, would he please withdraw that and rephrase his question. He knows that that is a word that is unacceptable in the House.
How can there be any confidence in New Zealand’s democracy, when an overseas billionaire pays off Winston Peters’ legal bill to the tune of $100,000 while seeking an honorary consulship, and Bob Jones gives Winston Peters $25,000 that disappears into his brother’s trust account; and is not the real problem in all of this the fact that Helen Clark refuses to investigate because she needs the vote of New Zealand First?
The Prime Minister has made it clear that there are many avenues to look at all the accusations the member has made, which are not backed up with proof. But I would say to the member that people in glass houses should not throw stones, because in 2007 ACT was late putting in its party donations return. So although ACT is very smart about everybody else, it could not keep up with what it was supposed to do.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am concerned that the Minister of Justice would suggest that what I said in my question was not factual, when in fact it is absolutely factual. We have had the statement from Bob Jones, we have had the statement from Brian Henry, and I think it is a bit rich—
What are the penalties for deliberately submitting an incorrect or incomplete donation return to the Electoral Commission in any particular year?
I do not have the legislation in front of me, but there are penalties; I refer the member to the Act.
I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is a very simple question. This Minister presided over the passing of the Act. Without losing a supplementary question, I wonder whether I might reword it in a way that the Minister might be able to answer it.
No. I listened; the Minister addressed the question. The member may not like the answer, but she did address the question. You may ask another supplementary question, if you wish.
Does the Minister think the public interest in the revelations about undisclosed donations to New Zealand First, and the considerable donation made to New Zealand First by Owen Glenn, warrant further investigations by the Electoral Commission to ensure that New Zealand First now understands—
Peter BrownI raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. It has been well established that Owen Glenn did not make any donation to New Zealand First. He made a donation to the legal fund of the Rt Hon Winston Peters, and that is quite a different thing—quite a different thing.
This is a matter of debate; it is not for the Speaker to rule on the accuracy of questions or answers.
Does the Minister think the public interest in the revelations about donations to New Zealand First from both Bob Jones and Owen Glenn that have not been declared by New Zealand First warrant further investigation by the Electoral Commission; and will she, as Minister, ask the commission to consider making those investigations, or is it just—as the Prime Minister said—that there is a smorgasbord of things that could happen and they hope none of them do?
Of course, the Prime Minister never said any such thing; and the member just did what he constantly does—he makes it up. He pretends he knows a lot about the Electoral Act, but he may not know that the Electoral Commission is actually independent of the Minister of Justice and it will decide whether it will investigate any action of any party in this House.