OFS Quiet with Lips on Phil Goff Election Spending Investigation | 1 NEWS



[ad_1]

The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) says an investigation into Auckland Mayor Phil Goff’s election spending is still a work in progress and is keeping quiet about what exactly it is investigating.

Phil Goff, Mayor of Auckland Source: RNZ / Dan Cook


Stephen Forbes, Local Democracy reporter

The SFO confirmed in March that it had launched a formal investigation into Goff’s campaign spending, as well as those of his former Labor Party colleague and Christchurch Mayor Lianne Dalziel, after police remitted them.

Goff’s 2019 campaign manager Shale Chambers said the Serious Fraud Office has never confirmed the nature of its investigation.

However, Chambers said the issue appears to revolve around the use of auctions in the 2016 and 2019 campaigns and which items should have been declared in the campaign statements.

“It is no secret that there was an auction during the 2019 campaign and there was a couple during the 2016 election campaign,” he said.

Chambers was not a campaign manager in the 2016 election, but took office in time for the 2019 mayoral race. He said he was confident there was no reason for further legal action.

“In the statements we submitted, we fully declared auction bids that were above the $ 1,500 threshold for donations.”

According to the Local Electoral Law, donations below that amount do not have to be declared.

However, “there is a gray area where a competitive offer could become a donation and should be declared.”

Chambers said he does not know who the plaintiff is, but is eager for the issue to be resolved.

READ MORE

Serious Fraud Office investigates Auckland Mayor Phil Goff’s election spending

“Reputation is at stake and until there is a result we cannot close the chapter and move on.”

Goff declined to comment. A spokesperson said the SFO had not contacted him to date and directed the inquiry to the agency.

Last September, election official Dale Ofsoske passed a complaint about Goff’s election spending in 2016 to the police.

It focused on a $ 366,000 auction statement that did not specify individual donations or purchases. It included the sale of a book at auction for $ 150,000.

The book had belonged to Goff, a former foreign minister, and had been signed by Chinese President Xi Jinping.

Police carried out “a series of investigations”, but the deadline for a possible prosecution expired in December.

At the time, Ofsoske said the complaint was under section 112D of the Local Election Act of 2001 – “filing a false statement of election donations and expenses.”

This is not the first time questions have been raised about politicians and political parties using auctions as a means of obtaining political donations.

In 2017, the Labor Party was found to have hidden tens of thousands of dollars in donations behind over-inflated art auctions, naming the artists as donors rather than the secret individuals who paid for the works.

The artists involved had no idea that the party named them donors and never saw a penny of the money. They said his works were auctioned at a much higher value than the market to wealthy benefactors who wanted to keep their support for the party a secret.

The Labor Party said the practice complied with electoral law. But one party member described the practice as “laundering,” a way to keep large donations private at a time when corporate contributions to political parties were falling due to public scrutiny.

University of Otago law professor Andrew Geddis said candidates and parties often use auctions to raise funds for their campaigns. He said it may involve someone paying a large amount for an item that is above what they would normally pay for it.

He said it is important for the public to know who paid the money in such auctions and who has been financing the campaign of a party or candidate.

Geddis said that when local agency candidates submit their spending and donation statements, independent audits or controls are often not conducted.

Under the Local Electoral Law, the tellers have a limited window to take legal action on any irregularities that are detected, he said.

However, the SFO has the ability to prosecute under the Crimes Act and is not limited by those time frames.

[ad_2]