A four-year investigation into the legality of the Waipareira Trust’s provision of hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations to political campaigns linked to its chief executive John Tamihere has finally concluded, with the case referred for determination by peak regulator, the Charities Registration Board.
It shouldn’t have taken this long.
The development marks a key milestone in and signals an imminent conclusion to the long-running case, which began looking at $100,000 provided to Tamihere’s unsuccessful run for Auckland Mayor in 2019 but was later widened to scrutinise finance and in-kind support provided to Te Pāti Māori’s general election campaigns in 2020 and 2023.
Tamihere was a candidate for Te Pāti Māori in the 2020 election, and has been the party’s president since 2022.
At issue is long-established case law forbidding charities from supporting or funding political parties or candidates, with regulator Charities Services advising on its website: “Charities may support the policies of a political party where they’re consistent with its charitable purposes; however, they have to ensure that they’re independent and don’t provide support or funding to a political party.”
They have broken this prohibition many times. They think the law doesn’t apply to them.
Subsequent annual reports filed by Waipareia for the 2023 financial year record the related-party loan was repaid in May 2023, but also state the trust’s executives – of whom Tamihere is the most senior – that year also received a pay increase of 77% to each earn an average of $510,679.
So it is quite possible the Trust merely increased massively the salaries of key staff, so that the staff could then repay the loan.
The board, comprised of lawyers Gwendoline Keel and Loretta Lovell, and consultant Dr Bev Gatenby, typically meets monthly.
Keel, the board chair, stood down from her role last year after standing as a candidate for the Labour Party in the Port Waikato electorate. She ultimately lost that race, and Charities Services said following the election that she had since resumed her chairing duties.
Not ideal. A candidate should not be on the board of the regulator who decides if charities are breaching rules on political neutrality.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
4 comments:
If no action is taken about this, then Maori are indeed above the law and He Puapua is already installed.
Am I stupid or have I simply not understood this fiasco correctly? Is this showing that Charities Services Reg Board deciding on a situation which they themselves are up to their necks in? I was very unimpressed with a decison they made recently regarding Greenpeace and its charitable status where they deemed it okay for them to have a secondary purpose regarding the the Treaty. If I understand this correctly, this will be another whitewash overseen or moreover overlooked by Internal Affairs. Please tell me it is not so because if it is this government is allowing corruption left right and centre.
Definitely not ideal. Casual corruption has become normal in NZ. The last Labour govt actively encouraged it. The current coalition is either reluctant or finding it difficult to root out. Where is the change we voted for? I can’t see it.
When I look at the Tamahere trust, sorry Waiparera trust, and the likes of Inside Out that uses taxpayer money to promote the views of a small radical section of the community, I'm convinced that the charity organisation's in NZ need a total, bottom up overhaul. My wife has helped set up a couple of charities in NZ having worked for a couple in the U.K. and she is amazed at what is allowed to happen here, due mostly to poor regulation and even poorer enforcement.
How can a charity accrue $68 million in "profit" , 18 of those in the last year, aren't they supposed to be "non-profit" organisation's? As a taxpayer I demand to see what every dollar of my money that was given to W.T. was used for, then look at all the others.
I believe that the taxpayers are entitled to a refund.
Post a Comment