Dalziel’s election expenses return is a sick joke on Christchurch citizens


Christchurch City Mayor Lianne Dalziel’s election expenses return, filed on the last day today, makes a mockery of her claims to have “high expectations of openness and transparency”.

Dalziel’s return hides the identity of those who donated towards her campaign. The relevant section of her return is here:

Dalziel is claiming her husband Robert Davidson donated $1000 worth of items which were auctioned and brought in $39,100 in income for her campaign.

Successful bidders who paid more than $1500 for any of the items should be identified as per Electoral Act requirements. It stretches credibility beyond breaking point to suggest none of the items was purchased for more than $1500 when the total raised was $39,100.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

It could be that Dalziel’s return sneaks through a loophole in the law but as it stands it is as clear as volcanic mud who bankrolled her campaign. It may be legal but it is a cynical breach of the spirit of the law designed to keep Christchurch voters in the dark.

Over the years Labour and National politicians (Dalziel is a former Labour MP) have worked hard to hide the identity of those backing their political campaigns, in particular by the use of trusts. They don’t want us to know that their backers are wealthy individuals who support candidates to delivery policies they want.

The people who are paying for a candidate’s message to get out is as important as the message itself.

Last month Dalziel claimed to support “high expectations of openness and transparency at Christchurch City Council”.

In light of her expenses return this is a sick joke on Christchurch ratepayers.

I am writing to the Electoral Commission to ask if Dalziel’s election expenses return is within the law and if so to urge changes in the law to stop candidates hiding the identity of their biggest donors.


  1. I often wonder as to how much money wealthy Chinese investors especially those with strong Triad links have made to say the NZ National Party since 2008 through to date?

    Just recently we have heard of Simon Bridges intent on coming down hard on the local gangs in lower socio-economic NZ but there hasn’t been a peep out of him or National for that matter in regards to coming down hard on the overseas gangs eg the Triads!!!????

    is it because a number of those who have become ‘Instant Kiwis’ thanks to a generous donation to the NZ National Party whilst they were in government have strong Triad links and Bridges and co don’t want to ‘upset’ those ones for fear of repercussions on election day??!!!

    There has hardly been a peep out of the mainstream NZ media when National had an auction and voted mostly Asian bidders in the lead up to the 2017 general election.

    And yet we all know National would often pass on their bills for expenses onto the NZ taxpayers eg Bill English claiming on accommodation costs which to me was a form of fraud even if Bill English saw nothing wrong with it.

    When it comes to politicians whether they be central or local they will always find a way to avoid paying a bill out of THEIR OWN pockets. And so to me the day of ‘passing the bill onto another to pay’ when it comes to those paying the bill is a ratepayer or a taxpayer needs to end. Especially when the bill is a personal bill incurred by a politician who are already more than wealthy and more so than ordinary low income NZ taxpayers and ratepayers.

  2. The whole thing is a rort, I remember a huge amount being raised at auction for Goff to get the mayoralty. I think that was the Asian community, this is a joke. Personally I want to be able to see every individual that donates to every politician and political party.

    MMMmmmmm fascinating – Countrywide – very involved in the development of Victoria street, mmmm a conflict of interest perhaps.

  3. It is interesting that the panning of the council re the secret squirrel attitude was kept back until after the election and the Darryl Swiggs complaint came to light just when it could do the most harm with no right of reply. This council has a lot of questions to answer but will continue on it merry way as the voting public just try to get on with life .

    • Oh it is not clever. The two major political parties have been doing this for years.

      She will not of course release the bank statement because that might show someone bought this and then later another thing and another and that could come in over the $1500. I think she is being totally disingenuous and someone will have spent over the amount where Dalziel has to declare it.

    • @ JAYS.
      How is it clever, when someone takes advantage of another’s naiveté, ignorance and trust? That’s not clever, that’s vile.
      A lawyer married to a neo liberal? And we’re surprised by this? I mean, really?
      “Did you know? Scientists are now using lawyers in laboratory experiments instead of rats? They discovered there are some things even rats won’t do. ” RIP Robin Williams.

  4. I moved to Ch Ch nearly forty years ago ( Jesus Christ! ) and have watched that beautiful little city with some very pretty sister towns slowly be dismantled by swindlers.
    The moment douglas The Rogerer crawled out of the maggots nest that was a parasitised Labour Party, Christchurch changed into a gangrenous cadaver and it’s never recovered.
    The earthquakes, I hoped, might dislodge the parasites but instead, they dug in deeper and things got much worse overall.
    Now? Ugly little glass boxes designed to sequester rent monies to line, among others, goff and munro’s pocketsess have been plonked about with zero consideration for aesthetics and a 100% interest in printing money.
    It’s a well known fact that some of Europe’s best and hip city planners went to Ch Ch to impart their knowledge and creative brilliance but were sent packing by an oligarch of greedy scumbags preferring instead to rebuild cheap-as, retail robo-boxes then rort the rents. ( I think I just repeated myself.)
    It constantly amazes and surprises me, that people would much rather vote for swine than for good. ( No disrespect to actual swine.)
    Such is the power of the ability of the MSM to gaslight the Masses, I guess.
    verb (gaslights, gaslighting, gaslighted) [with object]
    manipulate (someone) by psychological means into doubting their own sanity: in the first episode, Karen Valentine is being gaslighted by her husband.[from the storyline of the film Gaslight (1944), in which a man psychologically manipulates his wife into believing that she is going insane.]

Comments are closed.