Dail Jones In Trouble With His Leaders Also

Audrey Young reports further in today's Herald about Winston Peters anger with Dail Jones

Controversy over political donations has spread to New Zealand First, the Government's key support party led by Foreign Minister Winston Peters.

Party president Dail Jones is in trouble with Mr Peters after claiming that a large anonymous donation to the party in December went towards its $158,000 cheque to the Starship Foundation - a cheque since returned to sender.

The cheque was the party's cheeky response to the Auditor-General's finding that its share of unlawful parliamentary expenditure in the 2005 election was $158,000. Other parties repaid the money to the Parliamentary Service.

Mr Peters was reported on One News last night saying that what Mr Jones had said was "completely wrong"........

What does Glenn say:

Through a PR firm yesterday, he categorically denied being the source of a $250,000 offer to the Maori Party at the last election if it went with Labour.

Such an offer has been previously revealed by co-leader Tariana Turia, but she has not said who made it.

But on the matter of whether he had given money to New Zealand First, Mr Glenn declined to make any comment yesterday and referred the question to the party.

Mike Williams Apologises

The NZ Herald today reports that Labour Party President Mike Williams had apologised to the PM for not telling the truth (now called "incorrectly saying") about Owen Glenn donations:

Prime Minister Helen Clark acknowledged that Labour president Mike Williams had made "a mistake" in not disclosing the $100,000 interest-free loan Mr Glenn made to the party.

She also disclosed that Mr Williams had discussed with her the issue of Mr Glenn being made honorary consul to Monaco. Any such appointment would be decided by Mr Peters.

Labour issued a statement saying Mr Williams had apologised to Helen Clark for the error and repeated its promise that the interest-free loan would be included in its 2008 disclosures to the Electoral Commission.

It said that in response to questions at the time of the New Year honours about Mr Glenn's donations to Labour, Mr Williams "incorrectly said that we had not received any donations from Mr Glenn since the 2005 election".

Is Winston Finished?

We update you on Audrey Young's blog. You reach your own conclusions.

McCain and Obama Increase Their Leads

We have been negligent in not preparing readers for the Wisconsin Primaries, but we have real difficulty taking Wisconsin that seriously
Yes, it is home to the Green Bay Packers.

Anyway, as predicted McCain beat Huckabee, and Obama beat Clinton. This from CNN....

Good Post on New Zealand And Asia

By the ex-expat. We agree with most of what she says, particularly

Given the inherent risks of our current foreign policy, we all need to play closer attention to the Asian elephants.

Which is why we can't abide an idiot like Winston Peters being our Foreign Minister. One day, he will cause an elephant to take aim.

Today In Parliament

1. Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee—Chair
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
1. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 2 on 19 February 2008; if not, why not?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) : Yes.
John Key: When did the Prime Minister become aware that the President of the Labour Party, Mr Mike Williams, had asserted that no donations had been received from Owen Glenn since 2005?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I would think since the matter has been in the public arena, within the last few days.
John Key: Why did not the Prime Minister seek to correct the false impression given by Mike Williams, given that at the point she learnt of the statement she knew it to be untrue?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: When I say in the last few days, it was probably in the course of preparation for question time yesterday that my attention was drawn to that statement, which I think was made on or around 31 December. The member himself may have been in Hawaii at the time, which is probably why he refused to comment on the matter when asked by the New Zealand Herald.
John Key: How does the Prime Minister reconcile the fact that she chose not to correct the statement by Mr Williams, which she knew to be incorrect, with her promise that she would deliver a Government that people could trust and that would be open and accountable?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Of course, no such choice was made. I have made it clear since this matter has come to my attention that Mr Williams made a mistake. This donation of forgone interest will be in the Labour Party’s audited accounts. I note that the National Party’s audited accounts have no track of any donation ever made by Mr Key. Are we to believe that he is just mean, or has he hidden his donations in the Waitemata Trust?
John Key: Further to her response to my question yesterday, has she at any time had any discussions with the President of the New Zealand Labour Party, Mike Williams, regarding the possible appointment of Owen Glenn as New Zealand’s honorary consul to Monaco?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: As I said to the House yesterday, I became aware that Mr Glenn had expressed such an interest. Since becoming aware, I have obviously had that as a matter of discussion with Mr Winston Peters. Mr Williams has also talked to me about it. I repeat that Mr Glenn’s interest was expressed in just the same way that Mr Richard Worth advanced the cause of a friend of his; when Mr Worth wrote to the previous Minister of Foreign Affairs about the matter, he told Mr Phil Goff: “There is an aspect of substantial self-interest behind my request that the New Zealand Government appoint a consul in Monaco.”
John Key: Can the Prime Minister then confirm, subsequent to her answer just a few moments ago, at what point did Mr Williams actually inform her about the conversations that he had had with Mr Glenn; was it before or after they had received the various donations he gave to the Labour Party?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Those donations go back to somewhere around 2003, 2004, 2005, so quite a long time.
John Key: Has the Prime Minister worked out that not only is she wrong, but she is actually continuing to propagate the myth that Mr Williams has been trying to propagate, because, in fact, Mr Glenn gave a donation some time after that, and that may well have been around the time that he was talking about becoming the honorary consul?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The member is starting to believe his own propaganda. There seems to be a view that being an honorary consul is a plum post. Well, it might be for Mr Worth, who sees it as being in his self-interest to recommend people for the position in Monaco, but for most people they offer to do it because they think they can do something for a country.

7. Electoral Finance Act—Enforcement
[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]
7. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Who is responsible for enforcing breaches of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 related to the supply of credit to political parties at better than market rates provision in section 21(2)?
Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) : I presume the member does not really mean what he says in the question—that is, that someone should be enforcing breaches of the Electoral Finance Act. I think he meant to ask who is responsible for the enforcement of provisions of the Act, but I am not sure.
Hon Bill English: Can the member recall telling this House during the debate last year that in fact the police are responsible ultimately for enforcing the Electoral Finance Act; in the light of those statements is she concerned about a statement on Monday by the Labour Party President, Mike Williams, that interest-free loans do not constitute donations under any electoral law, and does she believe that he should be investigated by the police in case he is breaching the Electoral Finance Act?
Hon ANNETTE KING: Under the Electoral Finance Act, the Electoral Commission and the Chief Electoral Office have administrative responsibility for aspects of the Act, and the police have the prosecution function.
Hon Bill English: So what action does the Minister expect would be taken by the Electoral Commission or the police when the president of a major party says: “We don’t declare these sort of donations, but we get lots of them.”, and will she be ensuring that the credibility of the Act is reinforced by some show of enforcement of its provisions?
Hon ANNETTE KING: A show of enforcement will be made either by the Chief Electoral Officer or the Electoral Commission, or the police if that is necessary—it is not for me to say that. But what I will say to the member is that up until the end of last year the provisions relating to donations were part of the 1993 Act. That member yesterday asked in this House whether I was aware that the Electoral Finance Act made it quite clear that interest-free loans would be counted as a donation. There is no mention in the 1993 Act of such a thing.
Hon Bill English: If that is the case, can the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister has gone to so much trouble to say that the Labour Party will now comply with that piece of legislation over its interest-free loans?
Hon ANNETTE KING: The law is in effect, and in terms of any donations that were made in relation to the 2007 Act, the Labour Party would certainly be following it.
Hon Bill English: Can the Minister tell us whether the 1993 Act or the Electoral Finance Act includes provisions designed to stop parties from splitting up donations in order to avoid declarations; if so, can she tell us what she thinks of an apparent statement made by the president of the Labour Party that “We get lots of these interest-free loans.”, and that he may be splitting them up so that they do fall under the $10,000 threshold and do not have to be declared?
Hon ANNETTE KING: All those questions raised by the member are hypothetical. I do not have the answers for them, and I do not intend to make it up, which the member is doing.

Audrey Young Follows Up On Questions About Glenn's Relationship With NZ First

The Hive did not expect such a quick reaction to the questions it posed this morning about NZ First's relationship with Owen Glenn. In her blog Audrey Young confirms that NZ First did get a very large donation late last year, but the Party President is unsure whether Owen Glenn is the donor. WOW. This is interesting.

New Zealand First received a large mystery donation in December last year but Party president Dail Jones does not know whether wealthy expat businessman Owen Glenn gave it.
Jones told the Herald this morning the sum was between $10,000 and $100,000." but added: "It is probably closer to $100,000."

"It is a substantial amount for us."

It raises more questions at present than it answers and it is time Glenn gave answers. In January Glenn told Herald reporter Martha McKenzie-Minifie that he had given money to other New Zealand political parties but would not name them.

Two More PQs On Glenn

JOHN KEY to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her answers to oral question No. 2 on 19 February 2008; if not, why not?

Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Justice: Who is responsible for enforcing breaches of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 related to the supply of credit to political parties at better than market rates provision in section 21(2)?

Is The Government Getting Cold Feet On Emissions Trading?

With David Parker sidelined with a mystery illness, Michael Cullen has been spending more time looking into the implications of the Government's proposed emissions trading policy. He is not happy with what he has discovered.

First, the extent of opposition to the policy in the business community is greater than the Government had been led to believe by Business New Zealand and the Business Council for Sustainable development. As we have reported before the Business Council is facing an internal revolt.

Second, it seems that the impact of the proposed scheme on some sectors, companies and regions had not been fully appreciated by Government officials (indeed there are some suggestions that officials in Treasury and MED were seeking to use the emissions trading policy to force "economic transformation" - forcing companies or sectors to relocate abroad). This might be OK in a normal year, but this is election year. Some uncomfortably detailed impact assessment is beginning to emerge as the submissions are being put together by industry. Does the Government really want this to be the backdrop against the election is fought?

Third, it is increasingly clear that there are potential design flaws in the proposed scheme. The Government, itself, doesn't understand exactly how it is going to work. The policy has indeed been rushed - as some said it had been. Minister Parker had naively thought that these problems could be solved at Select Committee level. But Cullen now believes that this is a very big ask.

A group of businesses has sent a letter into the select commitee pointing out, that as new problems are being discovered with the proposed legislation, more analysis is being required before submissions can be finalised. They have asked for a one month extansion to allow this work to be done. The Hive suspects that the Government might be surprisingly receptive to this suggestion. An extra month might allow Cullen the time he needs to get to grips with this chaos and to decide the best way forward.

Blue Chip To Be Probed

It is good to see that the Commerce Commission is set to launch a probe into Blue Chip.

How Much On Housing?

Fran O'Sullivan writes the first article of an indepth series on housing affordability in today's NZ Herald. She looks aat the politics of the issue and reactions that The Herald has been receiving.

Labour Loses Exchanges In Parliament On Glenngate

John Armstrong writes in today's New Zealand Herald that Labour received a drubbing in Parliament yesterday on the Glenn corruption issue.

The trouncing was almost complete before Justice Minister Annette King described Bill English as "Mr Nasty". But that sealed victory for the Opposition.
When a minister as experienced and normally dominant on the parliamentary stage as King resorts to name-calling to avoid answering a question from an opponent, that is as close to an admission of defeat as you are going to get.

And

English's persistence made it a grand slam for National after John Key also got the better of the Prime Minister on the subject of Glenn, his donations, the loan, his New Year's honour, his claim (subsequently withdrawn) that he was offered a Cabinet post and, in the latest bizarre twist, his possible appointment as honorary consul in Monaco, his official home.

Key cut straight to the chase, asking Helen Clark if she had been aware of the loan when the Cabinet honours committee recommended Glenn for an Order of Merit.

The Prime Minister confirmed she had been, "but, of course, the honour was made irrespective of such factors".

Key then wanted to know why she had not corrected Labour Party president Mike Williams for saying - after the honour was made public in January - that Glenn had not made a donation to the Labour Party since 2005, given such interest-free loans counted as a donation.

Clark retorted that she had been overseas "and had no knowledge of it at the time". She similarly proclaimed ignorance as to how the Government had come to be considering Glenn's appointment as honorary consul.

Key then pondered why the Prime Minister struggled to either remember or reconcile things when Glenn's memory seemed to be intact.

What Is The Glenn Relationship To NZ First?

Has Owen Glenn been funding NZ First?

Did Glenn offer Winston Peters any financial support when they had breakfast together?

Was any donation linked with the offer of the Honary Consul position in Monaco?

Could the news media and National please find out? We hope the answers are No, No, No

Glenngate: Clark Being Pulled In Deeper

Martin Kay writes an article in today's Dominion Post which suggests that the row is increasingly involving the Prime Minister's reputation

Prime Minister Helen Clark has been dragged into the row over a New Year's honour for billionaire Labour donor Owen Glenn, after she admitted knowing he lent the party $100,000 interest-free before the award was made.

He goes on to note that

National MP Maurice Williamson accused Labour of corruption, and said the timing of the donations, loan and honour suggested cash for awards.

National deputy leader Bill English said later that Labour had to explain its dealings with Mr Glenn.

"It all points you in the direction of a relationship between Labour and a billionaire which is smelly.

"Any political party takes risks in giving an honour to someone who is a substantial donor. Labour took those risks, it then looked like they tried to conceal further donations."

Glenngate: Dominion Editorial

Following yesterday's editorial in The Press the increasingly embarrassing Glenn corruption affair is the subject of the editorial in today's Dominion Post.

But there is something very wrong about a party which has changed the law, supposedly to promote greater transparency and reduce the influence of what its deputy leader calls "rich pricks", soliciting assistance from those same individuals and then denying it has received any assistance.

Politically, Mr Glenn is now an embarrassment to Labour. His interest in being appointed honorary consul to Monaco and his "jest" that Miss Clark offered him a Cabinet post have become the subject of parliamentary scrutiny and his reason for making the original $500,000 donation - to counter the Exclusive Brethren's "sneaky" campaign against the party - does not accord with the facts. The donation was made months before the Brethren campaign began.

But giving $7.5 million to the University of Auckland's new business school and supporting it with scholarships worth $600,000 a year is as good a reason as most for making someone an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit. Thanks to Mr Williams' evasiveness, however, the honour will always be clouded by the suspicion that it was awarded for services to the Labour Party rather than to business and the community.

Glenngate: Today in Parliament

2. Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee—Chair

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

2. JOHN KEY (Leader of the Opposition) to the Prime Minister: Is she the chair of the Cabinet appointments and honours committee, which considered the nomination of Owen Glenn to be an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) : Yes.

John Key: Was she or any other Minister present at the Cabinet committee aware that Mr Glenn had loaned the Labour Party $100,000 after the 2005 election, when they made the decision to recommend him for the honour?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I certainly was but, of course, the honour was made irrespective of such factors.

John Key: Why did the Prime Minister not correct Labour Party President Mike Williams’ statement made after Mr Glenn received his New Year’s honour that Mr Glenn had made no financial donation to the Labour Party since 2005, when that statement was clearly not true?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Because I was overseas and had no knowledge of it at the time.

John Key: What assurances can she give the New Zealand public that Mr Glenn did not receive his honour as a mark of gratitude for bailing out the New Zealand Labour Party when it had to pay back $880,000 it took from taxpayers to pay for its pledge card?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: In fact, an honour is given in spite of such factors, and I would draw the member’s attention to the editorial in the New Zealand Herald on the matter on 1 January entitled “Honoured donor to our politics”, which went on to state that Mr Glenn “thoroughly deserves one of our highest national honours”. It further stated that he “doubly deserves his honour because he appears to have made no secret of his contribution.”, unlike the 3 million bucks’ worth of private contributors who fuelled the National Party’s campaign in 2005.

John Key: Can the Prime Minister confirm that she has approved Mr Glenn’s appointment as New Zealand’s consul in Monaco, and that she has, as reported this morning, told the Minister of Foreign Affairs to “get on with it”; if not, what is the position in regard to that appointment?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: No and no. The position, as I understand it from Mr Peters this morning, is that he is considering whether an appointment should be made at all to such a position.

4. Political Parties—Meaning of “Donation”

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

4. Hon BILL ENGLISH (Deputy Leader—National) to the Minister of Justice: Is it the Government’s policy that the value of substantially more favourable than commercial terms and conditions for credit is considered a donation to a political party?

Hon ANNETTE KING (Minister of Justice) : Yes, and the Government made the law specific in that respect in the recently passed Electoral Finance Act—something that was opposed by the National Party. It also made the law specific in terms of identifying previously secret donations from trusts.

Hon Bill English: Does the Minister agree, then, that the Labour Party president, Mike Williams, was completely incorrect as chief administrator of Labour Party funds when he said yesterday: “An interest free loan is not a donation under any electoral act, it is an interest free loan and we have a lot of them, mainly from rich branches of the Labour Party … it shouldn’t be treated as a donation”; if she does not agree with him, why not?

Hon ANNETTE KING: I am not going to comment on Mr Williams’ comments, but I will say to the member that under the previous Act, the old regime, that was very unclear, and, of course, what this Government has done is to make it very clear indeed. Of course we have also make it clear about secret donations from trusts, because that was not clear at all, not to most people—except for those in the National Party, which was very, very keen to use secret trusts whenever it possibly could in order to garner as many votes as it could without people knowing where the money was coming from.

Tuesday's Primaries

We can't add much to this assessment from CNN. We hope that McCain seals it. Long may competition continue in the Democrat ranks.........................

Government And Olympic Officials Back Down

It is good to see that the Government and Olympic officials have decided to back down on plans to deny the members of the NZ Olympic team a right to free speech while at this year's games. There are some suggestions that there is still going to be a restriction on the right to blog - this from the Greens

"Some concerns still remain. In the House, the Minister was unable to confirm whether our athletes will be free to write blogs, which is currently forbidden by a separate clause [7.1 (d) (i)] in their contract.
"Australian athletes in Beijing will be free to write blogs, and there is no good reason why New Zealand athletes should not enjoy the same freedom.

Clearly The Hive supports the right of NZ Olympic team members to blog while in Beijing. We would also hope that New Zealand is insisting that team members are able to read their favorite New Zealand blogs while in China. At present The Hive appears to be blocked by Chinese sensors.

Is There More To The New Zealand Position on Kosovo Than Meets The Eye?

A quick read of the world's media suggests that the following have recognised, or announced they will recognise Kosovo:

Australia, US, UK, Japan, France, Italy, Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg, Slovenia, Sweden, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, Bulgaria, Poland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Austria, Turkey and Hungary

Those that have said no at this stage are:

Russia, China, Serbia, Spain, Sri Lanka, Azerbaijan, and Georgia.

On the fence:

Canada and New Zealand

We can understand why Canada has an issue - Quebec. China has Taiwan and Tibet concerns. Russia and the others all have internal secessionist problems.

But why New Zealand? Is this about the Tuhoe nation?

New International Terminal At Wellington Airport

Great to see the private sector investing another $39 million in an essential upgrade to our infrastructure. Now all we need is decent transport links to the airport....................

National Claims Loan Debacle Is Getting Worse

National Deputy Leader Bill English has issued another statement on Labour's non-declaration of interest free loans:

Loan debacle deepens
National Party Deputy Leader Bill English says Labour's admission that it has been using interest free loans and failing to declare the interest as a donation raises wider questions.

"If Mike Williams can get the old law so wrong, what else has he got wrong? How can the public have any faith Labour will get it right under its draconian Electoral Finance Act."

Mr English is referring to a statement by Labour Party President Mike Williams yesterday who said, 'an interest free loan is not a donation under any electoral act, it's an interest free loan and we have a lot of them, mainly from rich branches of the Labour Party. It never entered my head to treat it as a donation and it shouldn't be treated as a donation'.

Mr English says Mr Williams must know his interpretation of the law is wrong ( s.214F of the Electoral Act 1993 is attached).

"It was wrong under the old law and it is wrong under Labour's new Electoral Finance Act.

"In both cases the unpaid interest counts as a donation. Mike Williams' comments reveal Labour has developed back door funding tools to repay the pledge card debt."

"He needs to tell the public whether Owen Glenn's loan is just one of Labour's pledge card loans.

"For a Government that rammed through the Electoral Finance Act to create transparency, its sins are mounting up by the day.

"Mike Williams didn't tell the truth when he was asked about Mr Glenn's contributions since the 2005 election, and of course Labour was also caught wrongly using taxpayer funds to pay for its pledge card."

Mr English points out that there are now numerous accounts of the interest free loan issue.

"Mike Williams says he had no idea it was a donation, while Helen Clark said they knew it was a donation and it has been declared. They can't both be right.

"Labour has some more explaining to do."

Ends
s.214F Electoral Act 1993:
"party donation... (b) includes, where goods or services are provided to the party under a contract at 90% or less of their reasonable market value, the amount of the difference between the contractual price of the goods or services and the reasonable market value of those goods or services"

s.21 Electoral Finance Act 2007:
"party donation means a donation (whether of money or of the equivalent of money or of goods or services or of a combination of those things) that is made to a party, or to any person or body of persons on behalf of the party who are involved in the administration of the affairs of the party, and- (a) includes,- (i) where goods or services are provided to a party, or to any person on the party's behalf, under a contract or arrangement at a value less than their reasonable market value, the latter being a value which exceeds $1,000, the amount of the difference between the former value and the reasonable market value of those goods or services; and ... (iii) where credit is provided to a party on terms and conditions substantially more favourable than the commercial terms and conditions prevailing at the time for the same or similar credit, the value to the party of those more favourable terms and conditions;"

It Gets Worse: PM Tells Peters to get On With It

The Herald's article on the Monaco appointment is even more interesting than that on Stuff. Glenn really should watch what he says. He is single handedly bringing this Government down.

Labour's biggest donor, expatriate businessman Owen Glenn, says the Government is planning to make him New Zealand's honorary consul in Monaco, if Foreign Minister Winston Peters signs it off.

His claim comes after earlier reports that he was offered the role of Transport Minister were dismissed as a joke by Mr Glenn yesterday.

Mr Glenn said Prime Minister Helen Clark had approved it and had told Mr Peters to "get on with it".

Glenngate To Dominate Questiontime

It might be fun to listen in to Parliament this afternoon. John Key and Bill English are both planning to stick the knife in deeper:


JOHN KEY to the Prime Minister: Is she the chair of the Cabinet Appointments and Honours Committee, which considered the nomination of Owen Glenn to be an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit?

Hon BILL ENGLISH to the Minister of Justice: Is it the Government’s policy that the value of substantially more favourable than commercial terms and conditions for credit is considered a donation to a political party?

Another Bauble For Glenn?

Again you read things first on The Hive.

The Government has confirmed that Winston Peters is giving consideration to appointing Owen Glenn as Honarary Consul to Monaco. This from Stuff.....

Contest For National Nominations in Wellington

Tracy Watkins has survived her "run" around the bays on Sunday and has written an article on the contests for the National nominations for some of the Wellington seats. She reports that in Wellington Central Stephen Franks is squaring off with former rugby player Paul Quinn. She reports also that Chris Finlayson is seeking the Rongotai nomination while Hekia Parata is seeking Mana. We hear the same speculation and understand that if Quinn fails in Wellington Central he could be offered the chance to run against Trevor Mallard in the Hutt. It is a pity that Tracy's analysis did not extent as far north as Rimutaka. Who is National going to run there????

Fairfax Group On Glenn

Aside from the editorial in The Press there is a big page 2 article in the Dominion Post by Martin Kay including a transcript of the tape recording of the original interview with Glenn. There is also a Colin Espiner article up on Stuff.

Kosovo: Now Recognised By Some Of The Majors

The US has just formerly recognised Kosovo. France, the UK, and Germany recognised Kosovo a few hours earlier. It will be interesting to see whether Australia follows suit today.

Spain, Russia, Serbia and China are opposed to an independent Kosovo.

Will New Zealand continue to sit on the fence?

Oh Dear, It Hasn't Gone Away - An Editorial

Glenngate is the subject of today's Editorial in The Press. The whole thing is worth a read. We just quote the final thoughts (with which we agree):

The broader problem for Labour is that its secret loan from Glenn is contrary to the spirit of the Government's own Electoral Finance Act. The legislation is deeply flawed, notably with respect to the harsh regime governing third-party lobby groups during election year, but the act did at least promise to make party financing more transparent.

Williams' equivocation over whether Labour had received donations from Glenn since 2005 gives no grounds for optimism that this year's election really will be more open and accountable in terms of political funding.

The loan is especially hard for Labour to deal with because it weakens one of its own pet arguments. Once millionaire John Key became National leader, Labour delighted in claiming that he would take the party to the Right and pander to the agenda of a wealthy elite.

Admittedly, Labour's primary targets are its opponent's anonymous donors. But its negative image of National still becomes more difficult to sustain when its own sugar daddy, both in 2005 and last year, was a formidably rich expatriate who lives in the tax haven of Monaco.

NZAID Money Being Used To Fund Jane Kelsey's Participation In Anti-Globalisation Events?

Trevor Louden has done more digging on the use of the NZAID funded NGO travel fund administered by the Council for International Development. The full analysis is interesting but what jumped out at the team here at The Hive was this grant:

Professor Jane Kelsey ARENA Our World Is Not For Sale Meeting – Oslo, Norway September 2002 $2,000

Our World Is Not for Sale is a worldwide network of organizations; activists and social movements committed to challenging trade and investment agreements that advance the interests of the world’s most powerful corporations at the expense of people and the environment.

Jane Kelsey is a well known leftist activist. ARENA is an anarchist/socialist organisation.

This was not just a meeting. It was a mass action against the World Bank conference being held at the time.

Use of NZAID money to fund Kelsey to events such as this is not acceptable. This is further evidence of the lack of controls on NZAID expenditure. The Government and Opposition should be deeply worried about this. The "best Foreign Minister since Brian Talboys" should be particularly worried as this is happening on his watch.

The Pitfalls Of The EU's Climate Change Policies

We are not sure that Michael Richardson, writing in the NZ Herald today, has all his facts right. Our understanding is that the EU is not proposing a border tax adjustment as part of its emissions trading policy (some in France had proposed this but it is not mainstream EU policy) - and we have posted recently on the difficulties that the US would face if it headed down the same path. Nevertheless we feel it important to draw attention to comments that Richardson is making as we agree with his conclusions about what would happen should border tax adjustments be made by WTO members trying to keep their industries internationally competitive after emissions trading schemes or carbon taxes are introduced.

The European Union aims to become the world's leader in the fight against global warming and climate change.

But in doing so, it may trigger a green trade war of retaliation and litigation from China, India and other leading carbon polluters in lower-cost Asian economies that refuse to follow the new environmental and energy use standards set by Europe and perhaps soon by the United States as well.

If this were to happen, it would complicate the plans of Australia and New Zealand to make themselves honest brokers between developed and developing countries in the contentious international negotiations on climate change.

It would also undermine the multilateral trading system policed by the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and add momentum to protectionist pressures that already pose a significant challenge to the open international trade regime that has helped bring prosperity to the Asia-Pacific region.

It should be noted that the emissions trading regime currently being considered by the NZ Parliament is far more comprehensive and draconian than that being considered in the EU. The impact on company competitiveness is also likely to be far more severe.