Inside mayor’s election dinner
A guest at Christchurch mayor Lianne Dalziel’s election campaign fundraising dinner believes some attendees paid up to $4000 to buy a bottle of auctioned wine.
The successful bidders were not named in the mayor’s just-released electoral donation declarations. Under the Local Electoral Act candidates must disclose donors who contribute more than $1500.
Dalziel said on Sunday that her returns complied with the law because no bidder paid more than $1500 over the market value of the ‘‘expensive and hard-to-buy wines’’, which her husband, Rob Davidson, donated.
Dalziel’s returns say the event raised just over $40,000.
Debbie Tamaiparea-Graham said she was invited to the July 26 event at Southern Asian Restaurant on Colombo St by a Chinese friend who was unable to attend. ‘‘He gave me $1000 because he wanted to buy a bottle of wine, but he was over in China.’’
Tamaiparea-Graham said guests received a booklet, which she showed to The Press. There were 19 items listed for auction – wines, liquor, a translation kit and security system.
The market value of the wines appears to range from $100 to about
$900. (Though the market values were crossed out, some were still visible and some The Press has independently ascertained.)
Photos of what look to be professional auctioneers were in the booklet.
Tamaiparea-Graham recalled bottles of wine sold for at least
$2000. One guest paid $4000 for a bottle, she recalled. The ex-city council employee believed most people at the event were Chinese.
Dalziel said she had nothing to hide, but was working to provide more information this week about the dinner.
In a text message yesterday she said: ‘‘I have relied on my husband’s advice about the disclosure. This was based on his interpretation of the Local Electoral Act requirements. I will file an amended disclosure as soon as I have the information.’’
A manager at Southern Asian Restaurant confirmed a party for Dalziel was held there and had been booked by Davidson. She said
about 100 people attended, but would not discuss it further.
Political and legal commentator Professor Andrew Geddis said when a rare or hardto-find item was auctioned the market value became ‘‘opaque’’.
‘‘The problem with this kind of activity is you essentially have to take it on trust when the candidate says ‘this bottle of wine was worth so much money’ – and therefore there haven’t been any donations above $1500 because people have just bought it for what it’s worth.’’
The tactic was commonly used by election campaign candidates and political parties as a way to raise funds and keep donors anonymous.
Transparency International chief executive Julie Haggie said best practice was to be as transparent as possible where there were combined amounts being declared, to avoid the perception of obfuscation. This could be helped by proactively providing detail about what was paid for what, to give the public confidence not only that there was an intent to work fully within the law, but that there was no intent to use a larger whole to hide parts.
‘‘I have relied on my husband’s advice about the disclosure. This was based on his interpretation of the Local Electoral Act requirements.’’ Lianne Dalziel