The Owen Glenn affair
The Greens have not commented on the Owen Glenn saga, but contrary to allegations from Kiwiblog not because we are covering for Labour or scared of offending the Prime Minister. As we’ve often said, when it comes to policy and philosophy National has far more in common with Labour than the Greens do. And that’s apposite in the area of financial donations. So I would think that National is in far more danger of receiving Owen Glenn’s millions than the Greens are.
Which is why this morning when I sat down to think about things to write about, the topics that came to mind were the China Free Trade Agreement, which is more important to the state of the New Zealand economy than even the largest of donations from the wannabe honorary consul to Monaco. Oh, and the proposed irrigation of the Canterbury plains, which could destroy huge swathes of the Canterbury environment in the name of industrial dairy. Excuse us if we’ve got our priorities wrong. I guess it is the same mistake we made last year when we spent our time talking about the actual environment rather than the work environment within the Ministry for the Environment.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
But the Glenn thing has been going on for weeks! Methinks kermits cousin has a blind eye.
>>Excuse us if we’ve got our priorities wrong.
Last year during the EFB legislation, I believe.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Just very strange for a party which said so much about donations during the EFB debate, has not a word to say on an issue which has been the headline for over a week.
The question I pose, is whether you would have had the same silence if National and Act were in the place of Labour and NZ First.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
For what it’s worth I personally don’t think the Owen Glenn donations are good for democracy or transparency. And Labour’s handling of the issue has been all spin and no respect for the voters. But I also think that it is very strange that the people doing the most jumping up and down about the issue are National Party members or supporters. Seems a big political risk to me given the likelihood of retaliatory nuclear strikes on this issue. Is National really ready to go there?
February 26th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
If I were an outsider criticising Frogblog for not commenting on important long running issues I’d probably pick ones like the Alliance PPCS merger, the WTO services negotiations, the ongoing introduction of GE into our country and food chain, and lack of rural public transport in NZ.
Oh, and Jesse Ryder of course.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
But National aren’t against big donations. The Greens and Labour were those in the saddle atop the EFB high horse crying foul about evil big money.
>>very strange that the people doing the most jumping up and down
You’re confusing “jumping up and down” with “fits of laughter”. The sheer hypocrisy is delicious
The EBs are mere minnows, yet you spent years talking about them and supposed links to National.
February 26th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
dpf, I have been having a break from the blogosphere. I see you’ve upgraded the look of your blog site. Very nice!
I certainly haven’t been following the OG saga very closely as I’ve been rather more focussed on water quality. Where, incidentally, I have extremely critical of Labour and have been getting the evils from various ministers for it. Of course whether Nats would be any better on water quality is a moot point.
It may seem strange but the EFA is not the centre of my political universe - unlike the right wing blogosphere apparently. We made a little progress on campaign finance reform with the EFA, it has a lot of problems but better than doing nothing.
So your beef with Labour is that OG gave Labour an interest free loan. And when Mike Williams was asked if they’d been given any money from OG he said ‘no’, whereas he should’ve said ‘yes’ because the free interest is in effect a donation. As I understand it no law was broken as the forgone interest was less than $10k which was (and sadly still is) the disclosure limit.
If I’ve got this right then yes MW should not have denied the donation because that was a lie. Not sure it’s worth a press release, but maybe. I’m open to being convinced that I made a mistake in not doing one but at this point I don’t think it warranted one (and hey i write my own press releases so they all take work). I haven’t been approached by the media on the issue but would’ve happily commented had I been (once I sorted out the facts from the spin from both Labs and Nats).
To be clear:
dpf, are you saying that OG got the gong and the potential diplomatic post in return for the donation?
And are you saying that OG gave money to NZ First as well?
cheers
Russel
February 26th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I don’t have a problem with donations, even large donations. I do have a problem when the donations seem to have a significant influence on how the Govt treats someone. Glenn’s desire to be Consul seems to have been given red carpet treatment, while previous persons interested were rejected.
February 26th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
dpf said: I do have a problem when the donations seem to have a significant influence on how the Govt treats someone.
But, DPF, didn’t the very large (we don’t actually know how much, because of the anonymous donations provision) donation from the Insurance Council and/or its member corporates towards the Nats’ 2005 campaign at least create the perception that it had an influence on the Nats’ presenting a policy supporting privatisation of the Accident Compensation Corporation?
February 26th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Fair enough. I read Fran O Sullivan’s article and there does seem to be reason to think Glenn’s desire to be given the Consul job was given special treatment.
But can’t you see this is a reason to try to cap how much people can donate to political parties so that we don’t have this discussion about whether the money did or did not influence the decision. Especially weightier decisions than this one.
And, dpf, i should point out that we can’t even have this discussion about your party’s donors becuase they are hidden behind the trusts!
February 26th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Toad: Some may have that perception but National has had policy in favour of choice of accident insurance provider since 1998. Money tends to follow policy rather than vice versa.
Russel: Fair point re trusts. And that is why I am comfortable with those aspects of the EFA which tighten up there. And I prefer transparency rather than limits because I think the reaction to the seemingly favourable treatment to Glenn acts as the best disinfectant. In fact generally the more money ones gives to a party, the more the party should bend over backwards to make sure they are not seen to be giving favourable treatment.
As for whether Glenn donated to NZF - who knows. He has refused to deny that he did. He has stated on the record that he has donated to multiple parties. And Dail Jones say they got huge big anon donation. Winston says they did not. In that situation I’d be wanting some clarity on the issue, esp as Peters is quoted by Glenn as all but having agreed to his Consul appointment.
February 26th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Oh and Russel - good to have you back blogging. I do think it is great a party leader blogs and interacts with the public this way. As for water quality I’d be lying if I said I had followed the issue much (but will keep an eye out for it now) but agree it is a very important one - the situation is a lot worse than people realise.
February 26th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
for goodness sake..!
get a room..!
(you are making the rest of us feel queasy..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 26th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
I somehow don’t think Russel will be trading KP in for me
February 26th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Um, dpf, although your post was lighthearted, I thought we kept personal relationships out of the blogosphere.
Not that there’s much public knowledge of whom you are referring to anyway. All the same, I’d never blog about a Nat MP’s partner, unless of course, there was some corruption involved.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:44 am
russel norman vs trevor mallard on morning report..
you’d have to call it for norman..
mallard just came across as an apologist for the rapidly deteriorating status quo..
where norman ‘hit’ was when he told mallard that it has been eight and a half years..
and that it is past time to take those ‘first steps’ to fix up the mess we are in/havew made/are making..
norman also mounted a spirited defence of the (currently much maligned) resource managment act..
citing it as one of the few protectors of our environment..
it would do norman/the greens no harm to concede some reform of procedures/charges could well be in order..
but that if anything..the underlying premises of the act must be strengthened..
..and the potent piece of evidence norman used..(and which should be a poster slogan..)..
..is that 30% of farmers audited in the waikato..are polluting poising our country/are inbreach of the (already ‘weak’) current regulations..
and norman/the greens shouldn’t be ’scared’ of this issue..
they should/must call on the frming community as a whole to ‘root out’/stop the ‘dirty’ones in their midst..
all in all..norman trounced mallard..
and in doing so provided a clear marker to the greens as to how to conduct their eklection campaign…
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 27th, 2008 at 9:22 am
As the NBR said of this OG thing - “a quirky side story”, vaguely interesting and probably worth about approximately one comment.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:37 am
Russ
I certainly haven’t been following the OG saga very closely as I’ve been rather more focussed on water quality”
That is the point DPF was trying to make, if this had been the Nat’s in the gun YOU would be all over it.
February 27th, 2008 at 10:03 am
Reasonable assertion to make, but he might have also realised how little EFB-related mileage there would be to gain over saying ‘[national party president] forgot/deliberately neglected to tell us about the 8 grand they didn’t pay on an interest free loan’ when interest free loans were never the issue in the first place…
February 27th, 2008 at 10:36 am
Toad: My reference to KP was as you say light hearted but also complimentary. I think there is a big difference between merely mentioning someone in a positive way and politically attacking someone.
I also used her initials instead of her full name. And IIRC RN and KP had a fairly high profile story in the SST last year about their relationship so I am not exactly revealing anything private.
Anyway I am still recovering from the shock of Phil U saying something complimentary about Russel in this thread!!
February 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Yes - the Green Party silence about the Owen Glenn saga is very telling. Normally Frogblog is very quick to jump onto anything with a hint of political finance scandal. But the Glenn saga doesn’t quite fit with the Green Party understanding of political finance, in that it involves the Labour Party rather than any parties to the right of Labour. And as is well known, the Green Party is incredibly soft on the Labour Government.
The silence also reflects that the Greens are probably in a difficult position in regards to political finance reform. The farce of the Electoral Finance Act has reflected very poorly on the Greens, and is now a vote-loser rather than the populist winner that the leadership would have assumed it to be. It could also be that the Greens are vulnerable on political finance scandals themselves, and are back-peddling from trying to take the high moral ground. A lot of people assume that the Greens are given few donations and that business interests are all opposed to the party. Of course, as the Greens become more middle of the road and middle class, and it shouldn’t be surprising that some sections of business are warming to the Greens. Eco-business and the Green Party go hand in hand. Even if you only look at one election like 2002, you can see that the Greens get loads of money from business. In that election the Green Co-convenor David Clendon bragged that, ‘We have had donations from some quite large corporate donors’ (quoted in Espiner, 10 March 2002: p.C2). Green fundraiser Danna Glendining also stated her expectation of receiving $500,000 in business funding (O’Sullivan and Small, 29 June 2002).
In terms of whether the Green Party - or any other party - receives large or dodgy donations, it’s worth keeping in mind that there were many ways to get around the donation disclosure regime of the Electoral Act (just as there are many easy ways of getting around the new EFA). Therefore there shouldn’t be too much credence or trust given to the figures supplied annual to the Electoral Commission for any party.
Bryce
http://www.liberation.org.nz
February 27th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
I think if Owen Glenn says anything in regards to the EFA, it shows how badly some tighter rules were needed. (even if we’re not all the way there yet) National’s in a bit of a glass house at the moment, and I’m frankly shocked that their secret trusts haven’t been coming up with this story too. Seems like the media is still on honeymoon with John Key- but at least Labour had the guts to talk about its shoddy finance issues, even if it made the mistake of not realising an interest-free loan was a donation of the interest.
That said, I don’t really mind that Frogblog isn’t covering it. There’s really not that much of a story there, and what there is has been done to death in the news- people talk about that sort of thing in humour all the time, it’s just most of it doesn’t end up in the news because people don’t disclose it. *shrug*
February 27th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
No law was broken with National’s Trust donations either - and you’ve certainly made something of them.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Probably something to do with ‘levels of secrecy’ Edge.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:54 pm
I would have though greens most pressing issue is medicinal marijuana (and the general can of worms/corrupt crime creation industry/prohibiton).
as its the one which is going to bit u’s on the bum come election time, frog….
and those ****s in Labour
How’s meterias bill going btw. done the numbers yet frog, and got that whip out yet?
for 2 grand a week per MP id be expecting action not cowardice
rgds
March 2nd, 2008 at 1:45 pm
You’re right about the Canterbury water rights being of more concern. Twelve hundred submissions against a private corporation asking to use the Public Works act to forcibly remove farmers.
You wouldn’t think it could happen, but apparently there is a clause in the RMA that can be interpreted as allowing any developer who can persuade the hearing that their development is in the public interest to go ahead and use it.
That is a terrible precedent - using the powers of the State to promote the interests of private greed!
March 2nd, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Janine, It’s easy if you’ve got a good lawyer and a gullible local council.
http://www.cpw.org.nz/
“The Central Plains Water Trust was established by the Christchurch City and Selwyn District Councils to facilitate sustainable development of Central Canterbury’s water resource.”
“It continues the work of the Central Plains Water Enhancement Steering Committee to develop proposals for a large scale community water enhancement scheme providing water for irrigation between the Rakaia and the Waimakariri Rivers.”
“A joint Environment Canterbury / Selwyn District Council hearing to consider Central Plains Water Limited’s resource consent applications will commence on 25 Feburary 2008 at the Christchurch Town Hall.”
“The Trust has formed Central Plains Water Limited. Central Plains Water Limited has around 400 shareholders, these being the owners of properties approximately between the Malvern foothills, the Rakaia River, State Highway One and the Waimakariri River, where it is envisaged that water for irrigation will be provided by the proposed community water enhancement scheme.”
March 2nd, 2008 at 3:46 pm
A public-private irrigation scheme is better than 100% private scheme. The people of Christchurch and Selwyn need to make sure that the public voice in CPW is given due consideration.
Storage is really the only option left for further irrigation development in the central plains area. Also, it is likely the saviour of the flows to lowland streams from the current irrigation activities, through adding more water into groundwater storage across the top of the plains.
People seem to forget that CPW is simply applying for the remaining water allocated by the Waimakariri River Regional Plan, although storage of this sort was not really considered.
The water quality effects associated with central plains are complex. The main issue with CPW (from a water point-of-view) is water quality, which has to be addressed on-farm. If nitrates and E.Coli start showing up in the groundwater, you must know who’s been doing what, where and when, which is a logistical nightmare and very difficult to prove (especially in court). The lawyers have a field day on this kind of stuff especially when effects show up after the 6 month limitation for enforcement action stipulated in the RMA.
The RMA is not a conservation act, it is a sustainable development act, that is, it is enabling legislation not prohibiting