‘For Peters, the documents potentially betray his voters, the donors who back the party, his candidates, his MPs and democracy.’
Matt Shand broke the biggest political story of the year with explosive revelations about an NZ First slush fund. He reveals the clandestine way the documents came into his possession and asks why reporters must go to such lengths to access information which should be publicly available.
THE winebox containing NZ First Foundation documents was next to a dumpster filled with used nappies from a nearby daycare. Or, at least it was supposed to be. There were no boxes in sight. No other options. Time to dig through.
For the past six hours ‘‘Deep Throat’’ figures had been sending me directions from random phone numbers as to where the documents could be found. The information had already been uncovered, people wanted to talk, but hard evidence – the documentation – was key.
The calls provided locations with little context. ‘‘The Square, Hamilton,’’ the voice would say and hang up. The next call would identify another suburb or landmark. After a search, making many people suspect a creeper, another call. ‘‘The shop on (redacted) street’’. Another call. Another suburb. ‘‘Dumpster. Closed lid. Go now’’. Having never spoken to these people before, it was all on good faith.
There were two dumpsters. Left or right? Right was chosen. Wrong choice. Random callers on the phone should learn to be more specific. ‘‘Deep Throat’’ had turned into ‘‘sore throat’’ as there was nothing there. No winebox. Just a dumpster full of nappies.
Before concluding this was the greatest prank ever pulled, there was one more check to make. The dumpster was near a preschool. Did they happen to see a box of papers dumped there? They had. It seems they had retrieved it for use as scrap paper for the kids. With a bit of fast talking, the winebox was finally secure.
Why the winebox? Someone has a sense of humour. NZ First leader Winston Peters, the deputy prime minister, built his political reputation on the so-called Winebox Inquiry into allegations of incompetence and corruption within Inland Revenue and the Serious Fraud Office in relation to complex tax deals involving the Cook Islands.
The Winebox 2.0 documents, the only proof of the mysterious dealings of the New Zealand First Foundation and the coterie of Peters advisers who control it, was mere moments away from becoming papier mache.
It should not be this hard to find out who donated to a political party in New Zealand.
Forgetting the rigmarole of finally getting hard proof, the information should be publicly available. It is beyond a lack of transparency. I feel it is a lack of basic honesty. For Peters, the documents potentially betray his voters, the donors who back the party, his candidates, his MPs and democracy.
There are so many people left bloodied on the path behind him that a resistance started to form to say enough is enough. There is a shortage of people in New Zealand willing to stand up when they see a wrong but that attitude is changing and the revelation of these documents, and the reaction of the public to them, should send a strong message to politicians.
The odour remained at the office. This time from the papers themselves. Documents included bank statements, spending records, donation receipts, letters and emails. There is worse to come. Analysis revealed that just more than $500,000 placed into the foundation did not marry
up with electoral returns.
A call to the Electoral Commission for some clarity revealed that this indeed appeared to be a smoking gun. More sources came forward.
The first spin from Peters was that the foundation and party were unconnected and the donation issues were an administrative error. The unconnected foundation paid for the speakers at the party conference, reimbursed MP Clayton Mitchell for travel, made payments to Peters’ partner, Jan Trotman, paid for the NZ First website hosting fees and it was even advertised as a fund as a ‘‘means to secure NZ First’s future’’.
Two of its trustees are deep in the NZ First Party. The first, Doug Woolerton, is NZ First’s founding party president. The second is Peters’ lawyer, long-time friend, NZ First judicial officer and self-proclaimed ‘‘Dark Shadow’’ of the party, Brian Henry. Ironically, it was Henry who helped Peters out during the Winebox Inquiry.
There were other links to NZ First. Donors have outed Tauranga-based MP Clayton Mitchell as the man arranging the donations and working to give out its bank number. Donors said they thought money that ended up in the foundation account was meant for the political party.
The second spin was that the foundation gave the party loans. And this is true. It did.
Repayments were made. Some loans seem strange. On April 29 this year, the foundation loaned the NZ First Party $44,923. On April 30, the New Zealand First Party paid $44,923 back to the foundation. None of the experts we’ve asked can think of a reason for this.
It should not be this hard to get straight answers.
NZ First has control of the $3 billion Provincial Growth Fund, which comes under Minister for Regional Economic Development Shane Jones. Its mandate is to fund projects to improve infrastructure, primary industry sectors and regional development. Investors and primary industry leaders are among the main donors to the NZ First Foundation slush fund.
One trustee of the foundation, Doug Woolerton, is also a political lobbyist. His webpage promises ‘‘personal introductions to relevant ministers and members of the public’’ with the guarantee of ‘‘discretion and confidentiality’’. Woolerton also offers ‘‘better outcomes for clients’’ by offering to help and advise on drafting changes to legislation. He is a regular sight at Parliament, moving in and out of Government and Opposition MPs’ offices.
The Provincial Growth Fund supports all manner of activities: new ports, dredging, slipways, a mussel-processing plant in Marlborough, tree-planting and a $5.7 million grant to protect manuka honey’s trademark. Knowing what we do now about NZ First Foundation donations, there are legitimate questions to be asked about the decision-making process.
There are also legitimate questions to be asked about why the law can’t force parties to be more transparent about their wealthy donors. Because that’s too important to depend on a handful of brave whistleblowers.