Transparency on inconvenience: NZ First’s failed attempt to gag the OFS

NZ First’s efforts to muzzle the Serious Fraud Office until after the elections were annulled because transparency outweighed the “announcement drawbacks” for the party.

There was also no evidence that the OFS followed improper process, according to Auckland High Court Judge Matthew Palmer, who overturned the judicial review of NZ First.

“There is no evidence before me that the [SFO] The director’s decision to issue the public statement was influenced by political considerations, or that the timeframe she announced for the completion of the investigation was set due to the elections, “Judge Palmer said.

He admitted that there could be a negative impact on NZ First’s electoral prospects.

“However, I believe that there is a significant public interest in New Zealand’s voting public being informed during an election campaign of criminal charges of serious fraud against persons or organizations associated with political parties.

“Ultimately, I believe that the public interest in transparency outweighs the drawbacks of the announcement to NZ First.”

READ MORE:
• The results of the investigation of the Office of Serious Fraud on the NZ First Foundation were published
• The NZF Foundation spent $ 130,000 on a business run by Winston Peters’ attorney.
• The results of the investigation of the Office of Serious Fraud on the NZ First Foundation were published
• NZ First Foundation: New Zealand’s wealthiest horse breeders, business owners and donors

Yesterday, the SFO announced that it had filed a charge a week ago of ‘Obtaining by Deception’ against two individuals after their investigation at the NZ First Foundation.

The defendants have provisional name deletion and cannot be identified at this time, but the SFO said they were not a New Zealand prime minister, a sitting MP or candidate in the upcoming election, or a staff member of a current party member.

NZ First frontman Winston Peters told Mike Hosking at Newstalk ZB this morning that he did not agree with Judge Palmer’s decision and that there seemed to be “one law for NZ First and there are different applications of the law for all the rest”.

He also clarified that they sought a precautionary measure as they had been contacted by the SFO that a press release was imminent but he did not tell them what he was going to say.

“That’s why we asked for a court order, we wanted to know how the hell are you going to do this correctly without even telling us what you are going to say.

“And what I was saying they were going to say was, we’re going to file these two charges and leave it up for you to find out who it is.

“We have proved our point, we took them to court and they were forced to change their press release to exonerate the party and make it clear that all party members and MPs and everyone in the establishment was exonerated.”

When Hosking asked if there was any recourse if the two people were found not guilty but NZ First had already lost the election, Peters said no.

“That is the problem, unfortunately this is how our laws differ from the laws of other countries … I want New Zealanders to know before the elections that it is only designed where there is malice behind and the difference in treatment between my party and me and the other”. parties.”

It comes a day after NZ First got 1% in the latest 1 News Colmar Brunton poll, well below the 5% needed to return to Parliament without a seat in the electorate.

Peters criticized the timing of the announcement: one day before the start of the overseas voting, four days before the advanced voting and less than three weeks until Election Day.

He compared it to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and to James Comey, who reopened the FBI investigation into Clinton’s use of a private email server two weeks before the presidential election.

“The timing of his decision to press charges against the foundation constitutes an error in judgment at the level of James Comey,” Peters said.

“It is a ghastly intrusion in a period when people are beginning to think seriously about the shape of their next government.”

He called the SFO announcement a party exoneration and would not rely on whether he knew the defendants or whether they were former party members, saying the matter was now before the court.

He compared his party’s deal to the SFO investigation into two $ 100,000 donations to the National Party, where four people, including Jami-Lee Ross, have been charged.

“We know that they were given significantly more serious information about the pernicious campaign of foreign influence that penetrated the National Party. However, only part of those electoral infractions resulted in charges. Why?”

He also compared the SFO’s timeline with its ongoing investigations into donations to the Labor Party in 2017, announced in July, and the mayoral campaigns of former Labor MPs Phil Goff in Auckland and Lianne Dalziel in Christchurch, announced in March.

“How is that fair? It isn’t.”

The party’s lawyers would now seek a statement in Superior Court that the SFO had abused its legal powers and acted unreasonably, Peters said.

The unreasonable and unfavorable accusations of unfavorable treatment compared to other parties were also part of NZ First’s failed legal case to gag the SFO from announcing the charges.

The SFO had wanted to make the announcement on September 23, but this was delayed after NZ First’s judicial review and then its appeal of Palmer’s decision.

The request was granted, but yesterday the party withdrew the appeal.

The foundation’s scrutiny has focused on whether it had lent or provided money to the party for purposes that benefited the party and its deputies and, if so, whether they had been duly declared.

According to documents reviewed by Radio NZ, donors contributed around $ 500,000 to the foundation between April 2017 and August 2019.

During that period, the foundation reportedly spent more than $ 425,000 on campaign advertising expenses, political consultant fees, rent and establishment of a Wellington campaign headquarters, and administration of the party’s website.

Party statements show that the foundation was listed as having made a loan of $ 73,000 to NZ First for 2017, $ 76,622 for 2018 and $ 44,923 for 2019.

In February, the Elections Commission said it believed the foundation “has received donations that should have been treated as party donations to the New Zealand First Party.”

The matter was referred to the police and later to the OFS.