Marama Davidson claims to have ‘outed’ anonymous donations

Green co-leader Marama Davidson has received support (and some criticism) after she claimed to have outed anonymous donations made to the National Party. These are donations that were disclosed by National by April in accordance with electoral law.

Davidson:

I’ve called for ALL parties to bring public confidence back to our system and step up to tighter rules. The vast majority of our donations were less than $100 (over 85%) and the ave amount was 48 bucks.

I don’t know that the public cares much about party donations.

Greens get a lot of small donations – they regularly ask for small donations from supporters. But I’m not sure why they feel that larger donations should be more strictly controlled.

There is a chance that large donors expect something in return from the parties they donate to. I’m sure that unions who make large donations to Labour hope for union friendly legislation from a Labour led government.

Greens focus on small donations – but they also use their donor and support base to lobby, via petitions, via bulk submissions. What is the difference apart from their method? Greens may in fact be using donors directly in their lobbying more than some big business donors.

Yesterday Davidson followed up, claiming to have ‘outed’ National:

Davidson has claimed to have ‘outed’ donation information that was filed by April this year with the Electoral Commission, and is easy to see here:

https://www.elections.org.nz/sites/default/files/bulk-upload/documents/national_party_-_annual_return_2017.pdf

A Green Party media release from Davidson: $3.5 million in anonymous donations to National in 2017, it needs to be fixed

Over $3.5 million in anonymous donations to the National Party in 2017 shows why we urgently need donations reform in Aotearoa New Zealand, Green Party Co-leader Marama Davidson said today.

“$3.5 million in anonymous donations is a huge sum of money, it is unlikely this is made up of coins or small notes dropped in a bucket of given at a bake sale.

“This spells out powerful vested interests tipping huge amounts of money into the coffers of the National Party, hiding behind anonymity.

“With this scale of funding comes influence, and at the moment we don’t truly know who these powerful vested interests are that are influencing our politicians. Our Parliament is ripe for influence by big corporations, and potentially corruption.

“It needs to end. After this past few weeks it is clearer than ever that New Zealanders want big money out of politics. It is time for our Parliament to be returned to the community.

“The Green Party are calling for anonymity to only be maintained for donations under $1000. This means that small donations at local fundraisers aren’t mired with red tape, but also means politicians will find it much harder to hide donations from powerful vested interests”.

In other words, she wants to protect the Green way of fundraising but wants to restrict the way other parties fundraise. Given that this would impact on Labour and NZ First as well as National I doubt that she will get much support.

It seems to be more ‘Green way or the highway’ anti-big business rhetoric.

Leave a comment

97 Comments

  1. robertguyton

     /  October 27, 2018

    Supporting big money and it’s influence on the decisions political parties make, Pete?
    Marama correctly points out that it’s not a healthy state of affairs. Good on her.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  October 27, 2018

      ““The Green Party are calling for anonymity to only be maintained for donations under $1000. This means that small donations at local fundraisers aren’t mired with red tape, but also means politicians will find it much harder to hide donations from powerful vested interests”.”
      Exactly right, sensibly expressed. Well done The Greens.

      Reply
      • The Greens (or more accurately, Davidson and Guyton) want their method of getting donations unfettered while putting restrictions on donations to larger parties.

        Seems like self interest cloaking in an anti-business attack.

        Reply
        • robertguyton

           /  October 27, 2018

          Surely they don’t want to fetter their own ability to receive donations, Pete and are asking for a transparent process. Your comment seems nonsensical.

          Reply
          • Gezza

             /  October 27, 2018

            Why should any donations be anonymous? I think they should all be declared, even $10.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  October 27, 2018

              Why should any donation be public knowledge, when voting is a private endeavour for a reason?
              Look at how businesses are boycotted and vilified based on perceived political slights and biases.
              Anonymity is an important part of the democratic process.
              I think they should all be anonymous.

            • Gezza

               /  October 27, 2018

              Because it is to a political party. An organisation that wishes to be part of regulating and controlling our lives and getting their mitts on our taxed money. They are open to persuasion, bribery and undue influenceof special interest groups with selfish interests not necessarily in our best interests if funded in the dark.

              Why should they not be public? What is there for anyone to be ashamed of if anybody is interested enough to want to even know what political party they support? Do they have something to hide?

              I am perfectly happy to tell anyone, resignedly, which are the least appalling options I intend to vote or have voted for with each election. If they won’t tell me I simply assume they are ashamed to say and regard them thereafter as still ok but probably a bit shifty.

          • Blazer

             /  October 27, 2018

            ‘Look at how businesses are boycotted and vilified based on perceived political slights and biases’

            which examples here in NZ do you have.

            Reply
            • High Flying Duck

               /  October 27, 2018

              Without wanting to state the bleeding obvious Blazer, I don’t have any – because donations are allowed to be anonymous.
              However it happens overseas in places where donations are not.

            • Blazer

               /  October 27, 2018

              you are always concerned about what happens ..overseas..a mind of your own is a wonderful…thing.

            • High Flying Duck

               /  October 27, 2018

              Non sequitur of the day.
              Taking note of what happens overseas is not a substitute for critical thinking. It helps inform.

    • What specifically is unhealthy about it Robert?

      Why is a few bits of bigger money more unhealthy than more bits of smaller money?

      Doesn’t it seem normal for a 45% party to raise more in donations than a 6% party?

      Reply
      • robertguyton

         /  October 27, 2018

        [Deleted, I’ve warned you before about falsely attributing things to me – PG], Pete. (Not a question).

        Reply
        • artcroft

           /  October 27, 2018

          No, Pete made clear he was disapproved of Turei’s theft of public funds.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  October 27, 2018

            The thoght of making a note of everyone who gives anything at all to a party is eye-watering. The Greens, whose donors seem to be both few and miserly, might be able to, but the thought of keeping track of every donation dropped into a bucket at a meeting is awful enough, never mind all the others.

            Please let it not happen.

            Marama Davison is a telltale who ought to mind her own business.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  October 27, 2018

              You’re right. I wasn’t thinking of the collection bucket. These days who has many pfennigs on them anyway. Possibly a limit of $50 or over from any individual ? One good thing about the idea of recording so many donations is that people going looking to bitch about them might just give up because of the sheer amount of time it takes to crawl through thousands of them to make an issue out of the fact some parties are more popular than others, who don’t like it.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 27, 2018

              Then there are people who buy things like rosettes and refuse to take the change….

              As long as there is a limit on what any party can spend on the election, I can’t see a problem.

              Aren’t the Greens a miserly lot? $48 average? Geez, Wayne, that’s pathetic.

            • robertguyton

               /  October 27, 2018

              Pete quoted, in his post:
              “The Green Party are calling for anonymity to only be maintained for donations under $1000. This means that small donations at local fundraisers aren’t mired with red tape…”

              Kitty said:
              “The thoght (sic) of making a note of everyone who gives anything at all to a party is eye-watering. The Greens, whose donors seem to be both few and miserly, might be able to, but the thought of keeping track of every donation dropped into a bucket at a meeting is awful enough, never mind all the others.”

              Did you not read Pete’s post, Kitty?

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 28, 2018

              Yes, but the discussion had gone beyond that and I was answering a post.

            • robertguyton

               /  October 27, 2018

              Gazza chimed in:
              “You’re right. I wasn’t thinking of the collection bucket.”
              Neither was Marama. The air is thick with it tonight!

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 28, 2018

              (refrains from saying it)

  2. alloytoo

     /  October 27, 2018

    Davidson is an ignorant hypocrite.

    Her tendency to make claims on behalf of “New Zealanders” is particularly irritating.

    Reply
    • Bill Brown

       /  October 27, 2018

      Wonder if she’s just a bit jealous of the funds the bigger players get ?

      Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  October 27, 2018

      Pretty standard political points scoring isn’t it? Part issue, part spin, part bullshit …

      ‘My’ Northland MP Matt King talks all the time about “average New Zealanders”, e.g. being driven out of their cars by rising fuel tax … Wanting four-lanes to Whangarei … and indeed needing four lanes with post-and-cable barriers for their own safety … (as if its ever been primarily a safety issue … and lo-and-behold it turns out plastic median posts actually work at a fraction of the price!) … and National “holding this government to account” on these “average New Zealanders” behalf …

      They don’t say “average Kiwis” … The Right Brigade have wrecked the name ‘Kiwi’ …

      The genuine issue component – that big money has undue influence – is a very real issue …

      One might argue that Righties envy Greenies their principles?

      “Our form of democracy is bribery, on the highest scale.”

      “Envy is the central fact of American life.”

      Read more at: https://www.brainyquote.com/authors/gore_vidal

      Watch ‘United States of Amnesia’ … Highly recommended … and very applicable to modern New Zeal Land

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  October 27, 2018

        ”The genuine issue component – that big money has undue influence – is a very real issue.”

        I’ll remind National of that when they resume office…after being in opposition.

        “Envy is the central fact of American life.”

        A sweeping generalisation and you know it, Parti. Freedom, money and good sex are the American Way. Given we are only in this material world for a short while…I find it hard to argue with American logic.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 27, 2018

          Pithy quotes tend to be generalizations, don’t they?

          As do pithy comments on blog sites …

          If you find it hard to argue with American logic then American logic – the logic of money and “me, me, me” – will be your legacy to your mokopuna …

          The problem is when it’s the NZ National Party’s logic too, they will make it the legacy for all of our moko, and some of us don’t want that.

          Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 27, 2018

          So, your argument for “the American way” is that we’re only in this material world for a short time!?

          Seriously …? That’s all you’ve got …?

          Reply
          • Corky

             /  October 27, 2018

            Don’t overthink existence, Parti. When you are on your death bed wheezing, gurgling and carrying on…you may realise how very little you had. And to add insult to injury what little you do have is about to be taken away.

            Reply
        • Gezza

           /  October 27, 2018

          I find it hard to argue with American logic

          It’s a cognitive defect that probably doesn’t recognise there is only logic. Logic doesn’t differ according to one’s nationality or ethnicity or gender or whatever.

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  October 27, 2018

            It does when it requires weighting multiple factors.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  October 27, 2018

              Can you give me an example? That seems to me to be a perversion of the concept of pure logic. Can one have qualified logic?

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 27, 2018

              Maybe all logic is qualified by being applied by subjective human beings?

            • Corky

               /  October 27, 2018

              Parti..you have redeemed yourself. I love the subjective American take on logic.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  October 27, 2018

              I suppose a simple example is a cost/benefit evaluation. Inevitably that involves valuing and thereby weighting at least two different factors to produce the logical answer to whether the outcome is good or bad.

              Another aspect is weighting “mostly true” propositions for artificial intelligence systems.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 27, 2018

              Corky … and I love the subjective Aotearoa New Zealand ‘Social Security’ take on logic …

              Logic without compassion is like a chickenless head.

              Alan, to exaggerate for effect, the cost-benefit analysis that arrived at National’s ‘Social Investment Approach’ only left out one important factor …. people …

              Cost/Benefit analyses are more-or-less entirely based on what the people undertaking them subjectively believe are ‘costs’ and ‘benefits’ …

              For example, four lanes to Whangarei does not stand up to cost-benefit analysis. Freight and commerce volumes are vastly more between Auckland-Hamilton-and-Tauranga where the original RoNS were located … Auckland-to-Whangarei is a thin red line by comparison …

              This is possibly why it never got COSTED!!! (Boom! Boom!)

              This Labour-led government’s shift to wider measurement parameters than mere dollars is an imminently positive, healthy shift … as is the reinstatement of the Four Wellbeings into the Local Govt Act …

              ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ are about the most illogical and subjective evaluations we humans have ever come up with … perhaps second only to ‘good’ and ‘evil’ …?

            • Gezza

               /  October 27, 2018

              @ Al
              Another aspect is weighting “mostly true” propositions for artificial intelligence systems.

              Ok, yes. Fairy nuff. Another one might be weighting “mostly false” propositions for any numbers mentioned by Trumpy.

        • Gezza

           /  October 27, 2018

          Sorry Corks. Couldn’t remember if I’d downticked one of yours or not, So I tested it and I hadn’t. It was only supposed to be a test but I can’t delete it, so I had to change it to an uptick. So please regard one of your upticks as a false positive.

          Reply
  3. robertguyton

     /  October 27, 2018

    ““With this scale of funding comes influence, and at the moment we don’t truly know who these powerful vested interests are that are influencing our politicians. Our Parliament is ripe for influence by big corporations, and potentially corruption.”
    She’s correct. There’s plenty of concerned talk atm about Chinese money and pots of it, and how that’s influencing National Party decision-making.

    Reply
    • Bill Brown

       /  October 27, 2018

      Perhaps Bob, the Greens just need to realise that they will be the “never rans” for ever

      To extreme, and have missed every opportunity given to them

      I always look back on Pita Sharples and Tariana Turia and what they did. Gave up something to get something…. a seat at the table to progress a little something for their people.

      Parties on the extremities will never prosper. Simple.

      So Maramas moaning is just 15 mins of fame stuff. Nothing more.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  October 27, 2018

      Influence is something the Greens are good at doing & some of their supporters will happily lawbreak to do it, but if they can’t influence more live and dead people to give them pots of money it’ll be because not enuf people like them or want them to have too much influence.

      Reply
  4. Blazer

     /  October 27, 2018

    Politicians ,SOE board appointments and honours should definately continue to be …bought and paid for..after all its the ‘American Way’.

    There is not one member of Congress that is not a millionaire.

    Reply
    • robertguyton

       /  October 27, 2018

      If the donations are emanating from the Chinese Communist Party, and filtered through individuals cleverly dividing up the money to avoid drawing attention to that source, then we have a problem. Notice I said “if”.

      Reply
      • If Guyton is using multiple identities to give many small donations to the Greens to avoid drawing attention to that source then do ‘we’ have a problem?

        Notice I said ‘if’. I could have made more serious accusations but that too would have been fine if I tacked an ‘if’ on the end.

        Reply
  5. Alan Wilkinson

     /  October 27, 2018

    Can you buy influence with a candidate for less than $1500 or with a party for less than $15,000?

    Seem to be what Davidson is claiming but I find unconvincing to yhe point of being blatantly false.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  October 27, 2018

      100k donation=2 M.P’s…2 chinamen…or 1 Indian and a ?Decisions ,decisions…Dr Jiang is in Parliament on…merit.

      Nationals top ..fundraiser…all done in the best …possible..taste.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  October 27, 2018

        Fake news, B. As usual from you.

        Reply
      • High Flying Duck

         /  October 27, 2018

        The tape JLR released showed pretty clearly there was no influence with the donation. They said the guy going through the candidate school would go through the normal party selection process. Hardly buying influence there.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  October 27, 2018

          ‘candidate school’?..what dat?

          teach what?

          Reply
          • High Flying Duck

             /  October 27, 2018

            I haven’t been through one, but I assume it would take you through the basics of how to campaign, dealing with the media, the structures and hierarchy of an electorate, responsibilities and a multitude of other things any new candidate would need to be on top of in order to win a seat in an election.
            Did you think people just rolled up and said “Vote Me!”?

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  October 27, 2018

              yes I didn’t know you had to be trained to be an M.P.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  October 27, 2018

              Try being even a candidate and you’ll be in for a surprise.

            • Gezza

               /  October 27, 2018

              Can’t quite picture Blaze winning friends and influencing people on the hustings. Could be wrong though, hard to say … 😐

  6. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  October 27, 2018

    I don’t recall the Greens making a fuss about the large donation they got from the estate of Elizabeth Riddoch.
    Maybe all bequests over $1000 should be investigated.
    Who knows what such a large donation could signify?

    Reply
  7. Zedd

     /  October 27, 2018

    good onya Marama.. keep up the great green work ! 🙂

    Reply
  8. Corky

     /  October 27, 2018

    ”I don’t know that the public cares much about party donations.”

    Bingo. The public generally know that business supports National; Union donations and sausage sizzle money goes to Labour, and when the spirit guides them, beanies,herb-heads and Tarot card readers donate to the Greens.

    The rest of us aren’t interested about what’s in political party coffers; we are more interested in what goes into our back pocket.

    Reply
    • Ray

       /  October 27, 2018

      Well I for one, would really like to see an itemised account of just where all this money goes to.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  October 27, 2018

        with you on that Ray.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  October 27, 2018

        I thought you already got that as parties have to itemise and report their election spend?

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  October 27, 2018

          That’s what I understand.

          Reply
        • Ray

           /  October 27, 2018

          It seems you are right:
          https://www.elections.org.nz/events/2017-general-election/reports-statistics/party-returns-2017-general-election
          A lot of information there, a lot, it’s going to take a while to drill down into it but I note some chums of the PM got $60,000 for work not needed!

          Reply
          • Ray

             /  October 27, 2018

            “An ad agency owned by Ardern’s friend Eddy Royal, Curative, was also paid $62,000 which Kirton said was for advertising work done in the initial stages of Ardern’s leadership before the new ad agency was selected.

            Kirton said New Zealand-based Augusto took over for the television advertisements and online advertising for Ardern, but some of the work done by Moss Group was still used. “It wasn’t totally a waste of money. But new leadership, new approach.”

            Augusto, which specialises in sports advertising such as All Blacks’ sponsors AIG and Adidas, was paid $202,000 for its work for Labour.”

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  October 27, 2018

              Sweet work if you can get, Ray.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 27, 2018

              Oh wow … a revelation … Labour is playing the same sort of political games!

              Which Party gave us Rogerednomics again …?

            • Blazer

               /  October 27, 2018

              you seen the Crosby Textor bill for Johnny…?

  9. Gerrit

     /  October 27, 2018

    And all those donations from unions have zero influence on the Labour political wing?

    Reply
    • PartisanZ

       /  October 27, 2018

      Which is exactly why Labour are reticent about electoral law reform too …

      If donations over $1000 required automatic disclosure it would all be out in the open, the Left, Right and Centre of it …

      And if small donations were matched $ for $ by the government to encourage “mom and pop” participation … all the better …

      Reply
      • Gerrit

         /  October 27, 2018

        Dont like the tax payer funding political parties.

        Ardern has hinted at tax payer funding, but that would not be good for democracy. No new party would be able to get enough funding to even run for election. It would seal in the current 4 parties as incumbent members of a closed shop.

        https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/108038649/prime-minister-jacinda-ardern-open-to-taxpayer-funding-for-political-parties

        Whilst I have no confidence in TOP party policies, they should be able to run for parliament just like a resurgent Maori party, or a conservative one, or even a Metiria Turei led McGillicuddy Serious Party.

        Plus the tax payers are funding everything else, please get the state out of my back pocket. Soon there will be only lint in there to feed and house my family.

        Reply
        • PartisanZ

           /  October 27, 2018

          While saying their names automatically means multiple thoughtless downticks, Palmer & Butler recommend a mix of public & private funding, with complete transparency, small donor subsidy, and funding available for parties outside Parliament …

          … as part of a new codified Constitution … see ‘Toward Democratic Renewal’ …

          Oh … I forgot … we don’t need one … the system is working just fine!

          TOPs ‘Democracy Reset’ basically supports their campaign for Constitutional reform.

          Since, as Bryce Edwards showed in an article I posted on here the other day, the taxpayer is already heavily involved in funding political parties, additional reform of how that funding is allocated and how it can be spent might actually lead to savings for the taxpayer …

          But, of course, they’re just a couple of Looney Leftie Lawyers and Palmer can never be forgiven for his Treaty of Waitangi work … He single-handedly scuttled the fantasy ghost-ship delusion of OneNZ Pakeha hegemony …

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  October 27, 2018

            Who says ‘mom and pop’ outside the US?

            Reply
            • PartisanZ

               /  October 27, 2018

              Oh Miss Kitty … Really?

              I thought I’d heard it used in relation to “mom and pop” sharemarket and property speculation ‘investors’ …

              But I’ll stick with ‘Mum & Dad’ from now on … since I’m a true ‘Kiwi’

            • Corky

               /  October 27, 2018

              ”But I’ll stick with ‘Mum & Dad’ from now on … since I’m a true ‘Kiwi’”

              For Pete’s sake grow a pair Parti and tell this prat you will call them what you like. Next thing she will demand you address her in Latin.

            • PartisanZ

               /  October 27, 2018

              Corky … If you don’t recognize a game of “cat & mouse” you shouldn’t be commenting on a political blog … should you?

              I don’t do things “for Pete’s sake” …

              I have a pair … but at least I know who you are now …

              You took the bait Corks … not Miss Kitty …

              “Kiwi” aversion training anyone?

            • Corky

               /  October 27, 2018

              Umm,er,yes.. you got me…I think? Good luck..and I’m glad you have a pair.

              I will retreat and watch the rugby.

    • Corky

       /  October 27, 2018

      None whatsoever, Gerrit. Labour are honest as the day is long.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  October 28, 2018

        Poor old Corky can’t stand the idea that a ‘sheila’ knows more than he does, and has to be a troll and make straw men to make himself feel better about this.

        Reply
  10. PartisanZ

     /  October 27, 2018

    ‘The Greens’ proposed donation ban would serve to ban new parties from parliament’

    – Geoff Simmons, guest writer – The Spinoff

    “Meanwhile, even former MPs get more from the government coffers than political parties outside parliament … Life outside parliament is very difficult for a political party. Some people I speak to are shocked to hear that parties outside parliament don’t get any funding, except for a meagre advertising allowance in election year. My position as Leader of The Opportunities Party is currently a volunteer, part time role. The fundraising we are doing right now is the only way to change that.”

    Excellent piece of ‘balanced’ journalism …

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  October 27, 2018

      Very true, PZ. Once their lips fasten on the taxpayers’ tits all socialists are very keen to maximize their flow and keep newcomers out.

      Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  October 27, 2018

        There’s probably some modicum of truth in that Alan …

        Like there’s a lot of truth in Blazer’s comment below.

        The problem as I see it is that both wrongly labelled “socialists” and correctly labelled crony capitalists are caught in the web of an essentially flawed system of so-called ‘democracy’ …

        I’m liking a derivative of Switzerland’s system more and more … although I don’t mean the Whites-only type NZ Initiative favour … because here we have that bugbear for many of ‘biculturalism’ …

        But if ever there was a system that might be co-operated as Cantons, it would have to be Aotearoa’s network of marae …

        Reply
  11. Blazer

     /  October 27, 2018

    Very true, PZ. Once their lips fasten on the taxpayers’ tits all crony capitalists are very keen to maximize their flow and keep newcomers out.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  October 27, 2018

      Nothing crony capitalists like better than a good Labour Government, B. Just ask Fletchers, AirNZ, Toll, Faye Richwhite, BNZ, …

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  October 27, 2018

        you really don’t have any idea do you..Al?

        Reply
      • PartisanZ

         /  October 27, 2018

        “Good” …. a “good” Labour government … How very dare you!?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  October 27, 2018

          Fletchers built the first stste houses for Labour and never looked back.

          Reply
          • PartisanZ

             /  October 27, 2018

            Yes Alan … hence the concepts of ‘common good’ and “best attempt” …

            Without those State houses New Zealand’s towns and cities would be much more sharply polarized contrasts of extreme wealth and putrid squalor … England of the South Seas … more English than England …

            We hold our heads high in Aotearoa New Zealand as much because of State Houses as because of frozen lamb and butter, the All Blacks or Anzac Cove …

            I don’t begrudge Fletchers that … but their twisted dealings with Fourth Labour and subsequent governments are another thing altogether …

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fletcher_Challenge

            1981 huh? I wonder if they had advanced warning …?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  October 27, 2018

              The Government makes housing too costly and then subsidises those who can’t afford it. That’s a make-work project for bureaucrats and their paper-pushing hangers-on that makes the country poor.

  12. “$3.5 million in anonymous donations to National in 2017”
    For us to decide if this extraordinary or not what were the anonymous donation values of the other parties in parliament?

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s