KEY POINTS:
Owen Glenn is just the sort of entrepreneur New Zealand needs, in spades.
The multimillionaire founder and chairman of the OTS Logistics Group - who left New Zealand in 1996 to form his global empire - was honoured for his services to business and the community on Monday.
His is the story of a confident young risk-taker with sufficient energy and bravado to leave high school at 16 and go on to found and grow an international freight business trading on every continent.
But Glenn's status as Labour's foremost financial donor at the 2005 election immediately sparked front-page controversy in the Herald over his appointment as an Officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit - and overshadowed the demonstrable contribution he has made to supporting the development of New Zealand business through major donations to the University of Auckland Business School.
The nominations process for New Zealand honours is a confidential one.
Glenn may well have been nominated by the University of Auckland for the patronage he has displayed by supporting its ambitions to develop a world-class business school through the $7.5 million donation towards the new building that now bears his name, as well as through endowing chairs in marine science and logistics.
His is a great and inspirational story for any young New Zealander wanting to try their luck, make their name in international business and then invest some of their profits back into the country of their formative years.
As he said at the time: "I hope that my own career might perhaps encourage the thousands of young people who will seed their business lives in this building in the years to come."
I would doubt anyone in Labour would have been so crass or stupid as to nominate Glenn on the basis that he was the party's major donor for the 2005 election. That would push Labour into the realm of the cash-for-honours scandal that dogged British Prime Minister Tony Blair's final year in office (it should be pointed out no charges eventuated), and would constitute a serious ethical breach if not an outright criminal act, as under UK legislation.
It would be repugnant if the notion took root that wealthy people should be awarded high honours primarily as a result of making major financial contributions to political parties rather than for their broader business and community achievements.
This would simply clear the way for all sorts of dubious characters to get their gongs.
But the mere fact that a business person has contributed to a political party should not disqualify them from being the recipient of high honours if their donation did not go to the government-of-the-day.
The fact that Labour had not awarded any of the prime New Zealand business people it believes to have secretly donated towards National's coffers - despite the fact that many are clearly overdue on the basis of their business and community achievements and their donations to New Zealand universities - suggests an element of political utu.
Glenn's donation would, I am sure, have been a debating point for the Cabinet honours committee, as his status as a Labour donor featured strongly during debate on the controversial Electoral Finance Bill in the last months of 2007.
The National Party's decision to withhold comment on Monday has been interpreted as a sign that it may also have benefited, or was about to, from Glenn's largesse.
But I suspect National, which is certainly concerned, initially held back out of respect for Glenn's wider business achievements and philanthropic donations to the country's premier business school.
The crux of National's concern, as explained to me by strategist Murray McCully and other party sources yesterday, is this: National sees the Glenn honour as a huge double standard.
Businessmen who are claimed to have contributed to National under previous rules which allowed anonymous donations, have been personally attacked in Parliament for trying to buy influence or favours. In the case of foreign donors to National, they have been prevented by legislation against making significant contributions in the future.
Whereas Labour gives a gong at New Year to support those businessmen who support it, in particular its biggest funder, says McCully.
National's other beef is the fact that Labour Party president Mike Williams let himself be drawn into commenting at all on the Glenn honour. He should have declined to comment and pointed journalists in the direction of members of Cabinet's appointments and honours committee, which is the body that receives nominations, deliberate, then confirms honours so as to avoid any potential for misunderstanding.
Certainly Williams was foolish to say (at this stage) he would again be approaching Glenn for election donations.
The background is this: Glenn initially met Helen Clark at a tourism launch in Sydney and was impressed with the international approach she was taking by pressing for free trade deals with the US and China.
He duly chipped in just under $200,000 to Labour in 2004 then topped that with $300,000 in 2005, making him the largest single donor to Labour for that election. The Glenn donation - which was made transparently - came to 36 per cent of Labour's total $1.35 million donation declared for the 2003-2005 period.
What is an issue and does require explanation is this factor.
The Electoral Finance Act as originally foreshadowed would have caught Glenn in the same net as foreign funders.
As National's Tony Ryall pointed out in Parliament last month, the original definition stated that one could donate only if one was registered on the New Zealand electoral roll (which Glenn isn't).
Then there was a coffee break. When the committee members came back they said the committee would have to make more changes to the definition of what an "overseas person" was. It was all about cementing Owen Glenn's ability to give half a million dollars to the Labour Party for the coming general election.
National believes Labour wanted to stop people like US hedge-fund billionaire Julian Robertson - who was attacked by Labour as a US bagman at the last election - from being able to support National this time round.
The truth is that Robertson - with no fanfare or naming rights - has contributed probably as much hard cash as Glenn to New Zealand by supporting Clark's push for a free-trade deal with the US.
Clark knows the full extent of Robertson's largesse, his support for the arts and development of New Zealand tourism.
In 2007, the Government awarded Fred Benson, former chairman of the NZ US Council, with an honorary appointment as a member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for his services to New Zealand-US relations. If Clark's committee had done the same for Robertson this time round, no suggestions of cash for honours could have been raised in relation to Glenn's honour. Neither man deserves the opprobrium he has attracted.
