Candidate spending
A veteran Hamilton politician is calling for more transparency around campaign spending, saying it would help stop post election mud-slinging.
Angela O’Leary contested Hamilton’s mayoralty in 2019 and said it is ‘‘a little bit odd’’ candidates aren’t required to supply invoices with their campaign expenses.
O’Leary’s comments come after a former council staffer accused her and Hamilton Mayor Paula Southgate of rorting election spending rules.
Jason Howarth, a former mayoral adviser to Andrew King, has lodged complaints against O’Leary and Southgate, accusing the pair of filing false returns.
The complaints were filed with the city’s electoral officer in January who has since forwarded them to police.
Howarth alleges Southgate deliberately hid the identities of some political donors and failed to provide details of all her election spending. He’s accused O’Leary of not providing all the costs of her mayoral campaign.
‘‘From where I was previously sitting in the council, there was a lot of spending happening from all the candidates,’’ he said.
‘‘Having previously run [for council] before, I know what things cost. It prompted me to have a look at the returns, hopefully to prove myself wrong, but after looking at them all, I came away with more questions than answers.’’
Howarth spent 30 hours examining the returns of all mayoral hopefuls as well as candidates standing in the city’s east and west ward. Hamilton’s mayoral candidates had an expenditure limit of $60,000, while those vying for an east or west ward seat were allowed to spend up to $50,000.
Southgate won the city’s mayoralty with 13,452 votes – a clear majority over secondplaced King on 10,315 votes. O’Leary finished third with 7870 votes. Donation and expense returns filed by Southgate show she spent $59,042 on her campaign – the most of any mayoral candidate. King spent $53,937, while O’Leary’s campaign cost $41,354.
O’Leary said she would have been happy to answer Howarth’s questions if he’d contacted her rather than waste police time with a complaint. Howarth lost his council job following King’s election defeat. His complaint seems motivated by ‘‘sour grapes’’, she said.
O’Leary said the election process could be made more transparent if candidates were required to submit invoices with their returns.
‘‘That alone would have stopped this silliness quite frankly,’’ she said.
The Local Electoral Act requires candidates to take ‘‘all reasonable steps’’ to retain records, documents and accounts necessary to enable a return. This paperwork must be supplied if a query is made.
Southgate said she was ‘‘gobsmacked’’ by Howarth’s allegations and questioned the timing of his complaint – and his motivation.
‘‘We’ve got really important matters to be getting on with in the city, so this is an unfortunate event really. I’d rather be focusing on a positive direction for the city,’’ Southgate said.
‘‘I used an independent law firm [Nielsen Law] to run my expenses because ... I wanted to be scrupulously above board and wanted to keep at arms
length from anything.’’
Howarth said his complaints aren’t politically motivated and he didn’t consult with King. The public has a misconception that candidates’ campaign spending is independently scrutinised when this isn’t the case, he said.
Electoral officer Dale Ofsoske said his role is to facilitate the collection of candidate election donations and expenses returns and make them publicly available. It is not the role of the electoral officer to check or verify any information contained in a candidate election return, Ofsoske said in a statement.
‘‘If anyone believes a candidate election return is false, and that an offence may have been committed, then under section
138 of the Local Electoral Act 2001, that person may, or the electoral officer must, forward any complaint onto the police for their attention.’’
In a statement, police said they assess any complaint received and will investigate if there is sufficient evidence.
Howarth is particularly concerned by four donations received by Southgate on August
27, 2019 which, when added together, equal $5000. Three donations of $1499 were made, along with a fourth donation of
$503. Donations under $1500 can be made anonymously. Howarth alleges Southgate split a $5000 donation into four parts to avoid identifying the donor – a claim Southgate rejects.
Howarth said: ‘‘I get $1499, I get the strategy behind that. But when you see three of them in a row and a $503 donation, and it magically makes $5000, all on the same day, that’s when I’m really, really suspicious. We all want to know who is pulling the purse strings of our elected leaders, who is trying to buy some influence. I have no issue with donations per se, as long as everyone knows that that is who is backing her.’’
Southgate said she made no effort to keep the identities of her donors hidden and could prove the four donations received on August 27 came from four separate legal entities.
‘‘The main fact is if you donate under that limit [$1500], then to the public you are anonymous. But of course I can prove to the police and to anyone who should ask exactly where every dollar of my election spend comes from,’’ Southgate said.
King said he had no knowledge of Howarth’s plans to scrutinise candidates’ returns but believed he would be motivated by political justice issues.
Spending on election campaigns is largely run on truth and trust. Suggestions someone hasn’t followed the rules goes to the ‘‘heart of democracy’’, King said.