In both cases, money was appropriated from the taxpayer for one purpose and was used instead for another, more venal, purpose.
Their are only two material differences that I can see:
- Donna was convicted of fraud for $80,ooo, whereas (according to the Auditor-General) the Labour Party's misappropriation was ten times that; and
- She at least paid for her own defence when caught.
So the material differences between then amount to:
1) one of scale, and
2) a difference in relative assets between Huata and the Labour Party. Huata could afford to pay back her fraudulently-gotten gains. The Labour Party can't.
LINK: Pipi offers Huata bonus of $60,000 - Stuff
RELATED: Politics-NZ, Politics-Labour, Darnton V Clark