Act Party referred to police over election donations

ACT Party President John Thompson had earlier said an administrative hiccup was the reason for the late disclosures. Photo / Steven McNicholl, Herald on Sunday

The Electoral Commission has referred the Act Party to the police for a tardy disclosure of donations from its biggest backers Alan Gibbs and Dame Jenny Gibbs.

The Electoral Commission announced it had taken the step today over the donations which were made in the lead up to the election last year.

Under electoral laws, donations totalling more than than $30,000 from a single donor must be disclosed within 10 working days. However, a series of separate donations last year, that added up to more than $30,000 from both Alan Gibbs and his separated wife Dame Jenny Gibbs, were not disclosed until the party's annual return earlier this year - a lapse that could attract a $40,000 fine.

The Act Party's president John Thompson had earlier said an administrative hiccup was the reason for the late disclosures. Mr Gibbs made separate donations of $7000 and $25,000 in mid-2014, tipping him over the $30,000 threshold for quick disclosure, but Act had not picked up on it. Act did not disclose it until its annual donations return earlier this year when the Electoral Commission picked up on it. Both Mr Gibbs and Dame Jenny had also made sizable donations earlier in the year which were disclosed within the time frame.

The Electoral Commission routinely refers alleged breaches of electoral law to the police, although police rarely prosecute and delays in dealing with the cases have led to calls for another agency to take over some of the more minor infringements.

Other incidents which were referred to the police over the last election included rowing champ Eric Murray and All Blacks stars Jonah Lomu and Israel Dagg for tweeting support for the Prime Minister John Key on election day.

The Electoral Commission recently lost a court case in which the producer of the 'Planet Key' song had challenged its interpretation of the satirical song as an election advertisement which would breach broadcasting rules if played. The court rejected that interpretation. The Electoral Commission has appealed that, but says it is seeking clarification of the law rather than appealing the Court's decision on the song.