That is the only way to describe a party which continues to receive laundered donations while campaigning against them. And that applies to both major parties. In 2005, Labour leader Helen Clark made it clear that she believed that anonymous and laundered donations undermined the integrity of Parliament and allowed corrupt “cash for policy” arrangements. But last year her party received $230,000 of anonymous donations, all laundered through lawyers' trust accounts. As for National, they went on the record in 2006 saying they wanted to end the practice of anonymous and laundered donations. But last year, they accepted $553,000 of anonymous and laundered cash, as if the embarrassing revelations of The Hollow Men had never happened.
While hypocritical, Clark was right: anonymous and laundered donations do pose a threat of corruption and of cash being traded for policy. The public needs to be assured that that is not happening here. Both parties should front up and identify their secret donors, just so we can be sure that everything is above board. And if they refuse, I think we are perfectly entitled to believe that they have something dirty to hide.
