KEY POINTS:
Former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer says a $10,935 donation he made to the Labour Party was personal and nothing to do with his role on the Law Commission.
Sir Geoffrey is president of the commission, a body which advises the Government on laws and public policy.
His
donation was disclosed by the Electoral Commission which last week released details of declared donations of $10,000 or more received by political parties during 2006.
National received about $140,000 from trusts so it is unknown if any public servants gave it donations.
A statement issued by Sir Geoffrey's family on his behalf said he gave the money to help Labour, which he led and served as Prime Minister, with its "big whip-around" to pay the election spending bill.
"Sir Geoffrey said he was fully aware of his responsibilities as president of the Law Commission.
"The commission was extremely careful to maintain its independence."
The statement said the commission had not provided advice in order to further any party's political agenda.
But National MP Chris Finlayson said the Law Commission president should be apolitical, whatever his or her past.
"It looked like cronyism when Labour appointed him and this looks equally as bad.
"I don't care if he thinks he can separate his personal support for Labour from his job - the fact is he can't and he must be seen to be independent."
Attorney-General Michael Cullen told reporters that Sir Geoffrey was allowed to make a donation as a private citizen and had been open about it.
"For all I know, given the complete anonymity of nearly every dollar that came to National, I may well have appointed judges who gave money to the National Party. I have no idea.
"And it wouldn't worry me at all if they had done. I would appoint them on the basis of their legal qualifications."
Coalition for Open Government spokesman Steven Price said disclosure rules needed to be tougher.
"Civil servants might be giving money in large amounts and nobody really knows about it and we think that's a bad thing," he said.
"Who knows how many other civil servants - who knows if the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General - are funnelling money through the trusts? I am not saying they are, of course, but we just don't know and that's undesirable."
Constitutional lawyer Dr Andrew Ladley, who is also director of the Institute of Public Policy Studies at Victoria University, said that the donation would be unwise generally.
"I would say ordinarily this falls into the category where probably it would be unwise to do it because it's a senior public service position."
The issue was about judgment and was not a legal question. The level at which the donor served in the public service was relevant.
"In principle I would say that there's a sliding scale that starts with a judge and ends with a janitor." Towards the higher end it was less acceptable.
- NZPA
