Labour Party MP Stuart Nash raked in nearly $50,000 in big money donations for last year’s election – including at least $25,500 from people who could benefit from decisions he makes as the new minister in charge of forestry and regional development.
Max Rashbrooke, a leading scholar on wealth and democracy at Victoria University of Wellington, believes the donations are “concerning” and “inappropriate”, and is calling on Nash to return the money.
“He could have taken those donations in good faith,” Rashbrooke said. “But if you then become minister for the industry from which those donations come, then I think there’s an argument that the appropriate thing to do would be to return those donations.”
A spokesperson for Nash said that after the election the Cabinet minister “met with the Cabinet Office to discuss a range of interests and the management of any possible areas of conflict. The minister continues to ensure that no conflict exists or appears to exist between his personal interests and his portfolio responsibilities, in accordance with the guidance in the Cabinet Manual.” The spokesperson did not respond to questions regarding which interests and potential conflicts the minister disclosed.
Nash’s acceptance and disclosure of the donations appear to comply with Aotearoa’s laws around campaign finance, but critics like Rashbrooke say it is nonetheless ethically worrying. He argued it was “concerning if a minister is accepting or has accepted donations from an industry which he is supposed to be regulating. Quite apart from anything else, there’s the standard principle that justice must not only be done but be seen to be done”.
READ MORE:
* Politics rife with ‘dark money’
* Greens won’t return $54k from animal abuser
Simon Chapple has researched political donations in his role as director of the Institute for Governance and Policy Studies – a Wellington thinktank. According to him, “It’s a matter of moral judgment. [Nash] should face some very strong questioning … If I was in Nash’s position, I would not have taken the money.”
Over 16 days in September, Nash received: $5000 from Andrew Kelly, formerly the managing director of Lumber Link and a range of other forestry and timber companies; $9503.80 from Tenon, a Taupo-based timber company; and $5000 from Red Stag, a Rotorua-based timber processing company.
Nash has a long association with Kelly, who also donated $5000 for Nash’s 2017 campaign and $31,000 for his 2014 re-election. Kelly was one of two businessmen who commissioned a 2014 report into the viability of a Nash-led independent centrist party. The Napier MP has previously described his support from Kelly as backing from a friend who “believed in what I was doing”.
A spokesperson for Red Stag said: “It is important to the economy that government has politicians who understand industry. Minister Nash comes from a forestry background, so Red Stag supports his election.” Other donors did not respond to requests for comment or could not be reached.
Nash has described becoming Forestry Minister as “a long-held ambition”. His spokesperson noted that “Minister Nash has an extensive network of contacts in the forestry sector since first graduating from the University of Canterbury with a forestry qualification in 1993. He … has worked in the forestry sector in NZ and overseas at various points in his career”.
In his ministerial role, Nash now oversees Te Uru Rākau – the New Zealand Forestry Service. According to Te Uru Rākau’s ‘Future of Forestry’ report, over the coming years it will focus on the expansion of tree planting to meet Aotearoa’s climate goals, the provision of various forms of support to the timber industry, and developing commercial joint ventures between Crown Forestry and timber businesses. Through these activities, Te Uru Rākau will be interacting and negotiating with private timber companies like LumberLink, Tenon and Red Stag.
More broadly, Nash is Cabinet’s subject matter expert on forestry and regional development and will have influence over its decisions on policy and regulatory issues in these areas.
Nash also received $6500 from Shah Aslam, the chief executive and owner of Air Napier. The address disclosed by Aslam for his donation matches that of another of his businesses – the Wellington restaurant Mama Brown. Among its range of services, Air Napier provides passenger services to Hawkes Bay and ‘event packages’ which include wine tastings, shopping trips and golf outings.
The Government recently unveiled a $200 million ‘Regional Strategic Partnership Fund’ (a reformed version of last term’s Provincial Growth Fund). Nash will be one of a small team of ministers assessing funding applications of up to $20 million from the private and public sector in regional Aotearoa. His spokesperson insisted that “every project that will be considered for investment through the new Regional Strategic Partnership Fund will be subject to high levels of scrutiny before it reaches ministers”. The spokesperson did not respond to questions regarding whether he would recuse himself from any ministerial decisions specifically involving individuals and companies who have donated to his campaigns.
The great-grandson of Walter Nash – a Labour politician who served as Aotearoa’s 27th Prime Minister – Nash has long been an influential figure within the party. A stalwart of Labour’s centrist wing, he served as the party’s spokesman on forestry and revenue under then-leader Phil Goff, as chief-of-staff to then-leader David Shearer, and has held senior ministerial roles since Labour’s election to government in 2017.
Nash is one of Parliament’s most effective fundraisers. His haul of almost $50,000 in large donations gave him one of Parliament’s largest war chests in the 2020 election. In 2017 and 2014 he received $27,500 and $99,000 respectively in large donations, mainly from property and equity investors like Sir Robert Jones and Caniwi Capital Management.
While he accepted there were many innocent reasons to make or accept donations, Rashbrooke noted: “These are big sums of money in the New Zealand context. They’re big enough to buy influence because they’re big enough to fund significant chunks of what political parties do.”
Given Nash’s influence as a minister and senior party figure, Rashbrooke was emphatic about the potential consequences of Nash retaining donations from forestry and regional businesses. “Politics must not only be clean but be above suspicion. It’s dangerous for there to be even the potential in the public mind for there to be some biasing of Stuart Nash’s decisions based on the donations he’s received.”
