David Parker

March 21st, 2006 at 9:37 am by David Farrar

Firstly kudos to Hon David Parker for resigning as Attorney-General without delay and sparing us an awful Benson-Pope type saga where he attacks the accusers, denies he did it, then claims he can not remember and finally says it wasn’t that serious.

How-ever despite that laudable act, there are real questions remaining about whether he can remain a Minister at all. After all losing a portfolio is not exactly a major thing. The question is whether his admission (made far worse every time he gives more details on TV about it) that he falsified company documents means he can remain a Minister at all.

I think Clark will look very shabby if she tries the line that it is okay for Ministers to falsify company documents so long as they are not the Attorney-General. If Parker gives up his other portfolios he can be rehabilitated in due course.

His bigger concern may be keeping his seat in Parliament. If he is charged and convicted on the false returns then he stands to lose his seat as you are automatically expelled from Parliament if convicted of a crime with a maximum sentence of more than two years – even if the actual sentence is only a fine.

So if he is charged, then he may be expelled from Parliament. if he is not charged despite his admission, then it will just cement in the impression of a Government whose MPs are above the law.

UPDATE: Just announced that David Parker has resigned from all his portfolios. The PM in just 24 hours has gone from a position of there is no issue, to he must go as Attorney-General to he must resign all together as a Minister.

David Parker probably didn’t help his position with his interviews on this issue – especially last night on Campbell Live.

Commiserations to the staff on his office who are suddenly out of a job. Until a decision is made on whether a new Minister will be appointed and who gets what portfolios will be fairly miserable for them.

Tags:

53 Responses to “David Parker”

  1. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Um, yes, I think it’s time for Clark to tell David Parker to “do a Taito” and stop talking. I can’t believe he was all over the media this morning saying that if he hadn’t been A-G, he wouldn’t have even offered his resignation from Cabinet because the matter was so ‘minor”. Oy… I expect him to crank up the fog machine while potentially facing serious criminal charges – he’s certainly not going to come out and say, “I knowingly and wilfully lodged false statutory declarations with the Companies Office as recently as last year.”
    But I don’t think he should be trying to pain himself as Joan of Arc. Not at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Slipstream () says:

    Why is it that someone needs to be honest in the portfolio of Attorney General, but not so in the portfolios of, say, Energy or Transport? Are there different levels of honesty depending on your Ministerial responsibilities? Last night on Campbell live, Parker said he merely “ticked the box”, when Campbell starting asking him about “ticking the box”, Parker said, “I never said that” and then two minutes later said he just “ticked the box”. What the hell is going on. I was in absolute hysterics. It was hilarious. He should go just for being an twat!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Graham Miller () says:

    I think we can safely assume from Helen Clark’s position yesterday morning that David Parker would still be Attorney-General – but (and a big but here) for the fact that (unlike various allegations made against other MPs) the paper trail against Mr Parker was a clear and present danger to the Labour-led Government.

    So he had to go.

    But I was dumbfounded when I saw the image of a grim and unrepetent Helen Clark (speaking to a press conference) on last night’s TV news bulletin. Mr Parker appears to have gone for all the wrong reasons (“innocent mistake”, “technical breach” etc).

    Whatever happened to the higher standards of government that we were told to expect?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Slipstream () says:

    Why is it that someone needs to be honest in the portfolio of Attorney General, but not so in the portfolios of, say, Energy or Transport? Are there different levels of honesty depending on your Ministerial responsibilities? Last night on Campbell live, Parker said he merely “ticked the box”, when Campbell starting asking him about “ticking the box”, Parker said, “I never said that” and then two minutes later said he just “ticked the box”. What the hell is going on. I was in absolute hysterics. It was hilarious. He should go just for being an twat!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. anonymouse () says:

    According to Radio live @10:50, Parker has resigned from Cabinet,

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Logix () says:

    Craig,

    I’ll take the “serious crimminal charges” more seriously if you could absolutely guarantee to me that there are no National MP’s who have EVER done exactly the same thing.

    As I said last night, if evidence arises that the paperwork mistake was part of some malfeasance to de-fraud Hyslop, then you will have a case. Otherwise it is as John Sherwan, (Sherwan, Chan Walsh I assume) states:
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3610630a10,00.html

    Tax specialist John Shewan said a mistake of the nature admitted by Mr Parker did not appear to be serious. “Mistakes are quite common but normally they are due to oversight rather than malfeasance,” Mr Shewan said.

    I don’t have to make up partisian spin to defend Parker….a tax specialist publically states exactly the same point I have been making. And it is absolutely standard practice for small companies to waive the expensive external auditor, even more so for one that is apparently non-trading or not worth much. If Hyslop had actually wanted an audit, it was his right to call for one at any time. It appears that he did not….a least not until he had the opportunity to exercise the grudge he appears to hold.

    So Craig, if you are willing to label this “serious criminal charges” I assume you take the matter very seriously indeed….on a par with say, umm manslaughter, or maybe rape. Given this level of criminality then I would very much hope you can assure me that there are no other National MP’s who ave EVER committed this same heinous crime. Shit why stop there…maybe the Haugue has a war-crimes case in here somewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. peter mck () says:

    Parker has resigned all portfolios – although he fumbled on cambell live last night – I do feel a little sorry – he has been honorable and sets a better standard – but why does the same standard not apply to benson-dope – .

    Benson-dope’s crimes are worse in my view yet that sleaze-bag still gets the limo and the baubles of office.

    If clark reinstates Parker (after a suitable time frame of six months) then it further demonstrates just how corrupt she and liarbour is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Camryn () says:

    Logix: I think you may be ‘assuming’ a bit too far w.r.t. Craig’s views on crimes of similar stature. I doubt he comes even close to considering it a par with rape etc. Hyperbole doesn’t help your argument much.

    You’ve been talking down Parker’s mistakes since this broke. You keep saying everyone does it. There are two reasons that’s a bad argument: 1) everyone doing it is not an excuse, and 2) his case is different – he did sign off for other *shareholders* without asking them. Many companies with one shareholder tick that box without the person sitting down and passing a resolution with themself, but they can have ‘imaginary meetings’ as only one person is involved. As soon as you have two, you need to do it. I know people don’t, but you do need to. If you choose not to, you’re at real risk… my advice would be to at least check if it’s OK to make up an imaginary resolution to avoid the hassle of physically meeting, and do it by email to get a record.

    Similarly, if *Parker himself* considers it worth standing down from A-G for, then it *does* raise the question of why he thinks it’s OK to break the same law while holding his other cabinet posts… no matter what anyones thoughts on the charges themself.

    I know you’re taking some harsh comments from the more rabid types around here, but please don’t let it drive you into becoming Illogix. Remember that there are crazies around, but most people across the spectrum are reasonable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Logix wrote:
    I’ll take the “serious crimminal charges” more seriously if you could absolutely guarantee to me that there are no National MP’s who have EVER done exactly the same thing.

    I reply:
    Logix, perhaps I’m naive but I thought a maximum penalty of a $100K fine and/or 5 years in prison implied that Parliament regarded this kind of offense as *ahem* not exactly trivial.

    You’re running the moral equivalency argument up the wrong flagpole, mate. If the shoe was on the other foot, and (for the sake of argument) Attorney-General Chris Finlayson found himself in the same shit he wouldn’t be getting a lot of sympathy here. And neither would Don Brash, if he fails to vet any candidates for critical ministerial posts very, very carefully. I don’t expect MPs to be plaster saints, but it’s hardly unreasonable to expect them to follow the same standards they demand of others. Is that unreasonable?

    I notice Clark has been hinting (once more) that there’s “sleaze” to be flung across the House if she’s “provoked”. Again, I’ll lay down exactly the same challenge I made to Michael Cullen last week: Bring it on, because I don’t think the National Party caucus is any further above the law – or beyond scrutiny – than anyone else.

    And, once more, I’ll say this: If anyone wants to put forward a serious argument for easing the reporting standards in the Companies Act, I’m still waiting. I’m just not impressed by the ‘but everyone does it’ defence from children, so why am I going to accept it from adults?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Michael(the other right wing one) () says:

    Sad for Labour, I guess, that their only cabinet minister with any talent was also the only one to do the honourable thing.

    I don’t think offending was actually as bad as Benson-Pope’s. Failure to get th official assignee to sign off on an annual report is nowhere near as bad as lying to parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Logix () says:

    Camryn,

    Fair enough, I was merely winding up Craig’s hyperbole with a spot of my own.

    All I am suggesting is that it is entirely unreasonable to characterise this matter as some kind of “crime of the century” committed by a bunch of “crooks” is an unbalanced assesment. Even signing the form off in the absence of all the other shareholders explicit approval, is a commonplace action in small companies, that almost always has a perfectly innocent justification.

    A certain kind of pettifogging mentality always finds it easy to make the case that every action we make in life, must at every moment strictly comply with every jot and tittle of every conceivable rule, exactly according to the book. I would boldly assert that there is no-one who has EVER been in Parliament whose life could sustain absolute scrutiny of their entire lives in such a manner. At some point you just have to say …it doesn’t really have any bearing on their current life. So when everyone here sucks their breath in over their teeth, and tut-tuts over this, rabidly exaggerating it’s significance….I simple respond by asking if you think the Party you support is equally squeaky clean, and can sustain the same level of attack?

    As for Parker, it is my sense that overnight he simply said to himself, “fuck it”…this isn’t worth the grief.” He is not by nature a scrapper like DBP. And face it, how many of you would want every moment of YOUR lives as open season for this same level of scrutiny.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. darren () says:

    Good lord! That a little magazine and a single journalist can wreak so much havoc against the forces of Helengrad speaks volumes.
    Imaging the corruption and sordid abuses of power that must be waiting to be uncovered if the MSM joined in.
    Instead, Ian Wishart is single-handedly performing the role of the Fourth Estate, holding the government to account and finding corruption, sleaze, hypocracy and lies for every magazine issue.
    No wonder She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed, dismisses Investigate, accusing it of making “smears”- about one every month.
    Clark does not want to be scrutinised, Clark does not want to be held to account and neither do her ministers and her government.
    They want to be above the law, like we have seen with the three “prima facie” cases and a conservation minister that holds himself above the law by believing he is a better judge than the Environment Court.
    But back to Investigate. These so-called smears are turning out to be true. And it is Investigate uncovering the “dirt” on what is increasingly a most dirty, sordid, corrupt Liar-bour government.
    Logix was upset by my use of Liar-bour, well what is “making a false declaring” but a lie.
    A lie perpretrated by the Attorney General of all people, who should know better.
    Indeed, it adds to the problems Liar-bour has with the law, and we must remember Taito Philip Field was ironically an associate Justice Minister of all things!
    David Carter can deserve some credit for going as soon as he did, though he hesitated first.
    But with the PM changing her tune over the issue, can we now accuse her of a “flip-flop!”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Matt () says:

    Camryn, Logix, Craig

    Please keep your posts short and concise – we don’t need a book….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Russell Brown () says:

    Logix, perhaps I’m naive but I thought a maximum penalty of a $100K fine and/or 5 years in prison implied that Parliament regarded this kind of offense as *ahem* not exactly trivial.

    C’mon Craig. That’s a maximum penalty. His resignation was appreopriate, but I’m sure you don’t for a moment think that Parker would be banged up for five years in this case.

    And given that Parker has now resigned *all* his portfolios, there can hardly be a complaint about accountability.

    I find some of the declarations from the moral high ground a bit rich, given the lack of accountability in National’s last term in government. Feel free to re-read the jolly story of Murray McCully’s appalling behaviour as Tourism minister – including putting his mates on the public payroll without even bothering to tell Cabinet – and tell me that you wouldn’t have been screaming blue murder if a Labour minister had done anything of the kind:

    http://nznews.net.nz/hardnews/1999/19990423.html

    McCully, of course, simply refused to resign, and his Prime Minister didn’t have the gumption to tell him to.

    Cheers,
    RB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Cadmus () says:

    Hon David Parker, A very Honourable man.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. rightkiwi () says:

    Darren says: “That a little magazine and a single journalist can wreak so much havoc against the forces of Helengrad speaks volumes.
    Imaging the corruption and sordid abuses of power that must be waiting to be uncovered if the MSM joined in.”

    And imagine if the National Party joined in too! Despite its Parliamentary budget doubling since the election, it has so far achieved almost no hits on the regime – they all come from this magazine!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Logix wrote:
    As for Parker, it is my sense that overnight he simply said to himself, “fuck it”…this isn’t worth the grief.” He is not by nature a scrapper like DBP. And face it, how many of you would want every moment of YOUR lives as open season for this same level of scrutiny.

    I reply:
    This is where I pull out the world’s smallest violin and saw out Brahms’ German Requiem, right?
    Stanley Baldwin famously snarled about the media’s hunger for “Power without responsibility – the prerogative of the harlot throughout the ages.”
    I guess there’s always going to be elements in political and business circles who’d like a taste of that, and are quite willing to play the victim of the small-minded peasantry when it suits. I’m not going to accept the invite to that pity party.

    Nobody forced David Parker into politics, kicking and screaming, with a ring through his nose and a gun jammed in the small of his back. He wanted the power to profoundly affect the lives of every citizen of this country; he has to take the responsibility that comes with it.

    Let’s just see what conclusion the Companies Office comes to. Who knows, we might find out there’s a primae facae case but it’s not in the public interest to prosecute.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Logix () says:

    Craig,

    So in one breath it is:

    Bring it on, because I don’t think the National Party caucus is any further above the law – or beyond scrutiny – than anyone else.

    And when RB immediately asks about Murray McCully’s antics as Minister(and he is still a member of the National Party last I looked) ….I get a diatribe about violins…and a mis-attributed Rudyard Kipling quote.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. tim barclay () says:

    I feel a bit sad about this because he comes across as a reasonable fellow. BUT his politics are awful. If he is charged then it is quite possible for a section 106 discharge though the multiple offences will make that difficult, and the position of the minority shareholder must be made clear, if there is any attempt to cut him out of things by not appointing an auditor then it is curtains for Mr Parker

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Graham Miller () says:

    My goodness – question time should be an entertaining affair today! Let’s review what’s on offer:

    Questions to Ministers
    1. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Energy, Minister of Transport and Minister responsible for Climate Change Issues; if so, why? [Prime Minister: I had complete confidence in the Minister... until he resigned]

    3. Dr DON BRASH to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by the statement in the Speech from the Throne in 1999 that her Government would “restore public confidence in the political integrity of Parliament and the electoral process.”? [Prime Minister: I stand by the need to restore public confidence - given the sticky quagmire that the last National Government got us in to; note that this is the classic strategy of addressing the question without answering it]

    5. GERRY BROWNLEE to the Minister of Energy: Does he believe the operation of the electricity market requires the provision of honest and accurate information from companies involved in that market? [Prime Minister: spin, deny, blame, avoid, implicate, then stand and deliver]

    8. Hon Dr NICK SMITH to the Prime Minister: Does she have confidence in the Minister of Conservation; if so, why? [Prime Minister: it's time to regale the opposition with the *real* Chris Carter story]

    12. Dr the Hon LOCKWOOD SMITH to the Prime Minister: Has she been advised of the progress of the inquiry being undertaken by Dr Noel Ingram to investigate allegations of conflicts of interest involving Hon Taito Philip Field; if so, has she been advised of when she is to receive the final report? [Prime Minister: report has become lost in translation, let's all move on]

    I note that 25% of the 12 questions today are patsy questions from Labour MPs – so the usual quota of “good news stories” will be on offer for those who need their daily fix of political spin.

    One final thought: will Winston Peters scratch David Parker’s back in the same way that he defended David Benson-Pope against scurrilous trial-by-media attacks… or not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Fred () says:

    That

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Logix wrote:
    member of the National Party last I looked) ….I get a diatribe about violins…and a mis-attributed Rudyard Kipling quote.

    I reply:
    Oh, dear… It was a bit hard to pre-emptively respond to a comment I hadn’t read yet (my computer doesn’t automatically reload pages), and I quite correctly attributed that quote from a speech Stanley Baldwin gave in 1931. While Kipling did use the phrase “power without responsibility” in a letter to his aunt Edith Macdonald a few months earlier, there’s no solid evidence to prove (or disprove) the claim that Kipling suggest the phrase to his cousin – or even wrote the whole speech. I think the authors of the Kipling biographies I own – Charles Carrington, Kingsley Amis, Angus Wilson, Lord Birkenhead, Andrew Lycett, David Gilmore and Kiwi academic Harry Ricketts – would have settled the matter if could be settled. Now, your cunning plan has worked. I think I’m going to curl up my copy of Professor Ricketts’ excellent book for a few hours.

    Logix, feel free to disagree with me – but please make sure you’re on slightly firmer ground before you call me a liar and a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Michael (The Right Wing One) () says:

    What’s interesting is Parker as Minister of Energy has been denying there will be any problems with electricity supply this winter – now if there is a problem the new Minister can claim to be ‘new to the portfolio’ ‘getting to grips with the issue’ and ‘unable to say until I get a full breifing from officials’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. MrTips () says:

    Poor Russell Brown: can’t accept the fact that Ian Wishart is a competent journalist and that he is a “media commentator”…..

    Poor Logix: refuses to accept that his glorious leader is reduced to conducting interviews with radio hosts like SIMON BARNETT of all people….
    Good Lord…….!

    HA, laugh a minute stuff!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Craig Ranapia () says:

    But since Logix mentioned it…

    RB wrote:
    C’mon Craig. That’s a maximum penalty. His resignation was appreopriate, but I’m sure you don’t for a moment think that Parker would be banged up for five years in this case.

    I reply:
    Russell, I do know what maximum means – could you look up patronising? Until I figure out how to make the crystal ball work I’m buggered if I know what penalty the court would hand down if Parker was convicted. Perhaps you know what the typical penalties are in identical cases? To get back to the point – and I apologise for doing something that mundane – do you think Parliament would have imposed that kind of penalty in the first place if it took the same view of the offence as Logix? Come on…

    RB also wrote:
    I find some of the declarations from the moral high ground a bit rich, given the lack of accountability in National’s last term in government…

    I reply:
    And I’m severely tempted to chirp, “Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Black-Kettle – you have so much in common” but that would be sooo childish. :P I guess selective memory loss strikes in the oddest of places, and at the most convenient of times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Ross Miller () says:

    Fascinating to hear the dog whistles in Parliament today in response to the patsy questions by Winston Peters and Ron Mark trying to take the heat off Labour.

    But I think that before Winston starts throwing stones he should at least do the decent thing and make good his debts including the $40k he owes the Member for Tauranga.

    The split in NZF between Winston, Mark and Brown (whoever he is) and Donnelly, Stewart and Wollerton grows bigger by the day.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Russell Brown () says:

    Russell, I do know what maximum means – could you look up patronising? Until I figure out how to make the crystal ball work I’m buggered if I know what penalty the court would hand down if Parker was convicted. Perhaps you know what the typical penalties are in identical cases? To get back to the point – and I apologise for doing something that mundane – do you think Parliament would have imposed that kind of penalty in the first place if it took the same view of the offence as Logix? Come on…

    Given what people who know more about these things than me are saying, I’m absolutely certain it would be regarded as being, as judges like to put it, at the lower end of the scale. If there *is* a prosecution, Parker will not go to jail for any length of time at all, and nor should he. (I’m sure all of Kiwiblog would be up in arms if Joe Blow Businessman was jailed for the same offence.)

    And I’m severely tempted to chirp, “Mr. Pot, let me introduce you to Mr Black-Kettle – you have so much in common” but that would be sooo childish. :P I guess selective memory loss strikes in the oddest of places, and at the most convenient of times.

    My point was that both John Banks and Murray McCully acted in a far worse way than Parker, while they were ministers, and in matters that had a direct bearing on their ministerial positions, and did not offer to resign, and nor were they ordered to. Clark has jettisoned ministers for less than either of them did (McCully misled his own Cabinet, for goodness sake, and Banks didn’t seem to know the meaning of conflict of interest). I thought Benson Pope should have gone, on the basis that he misled the House. But, basically it seemed pretty hard to get yourself sacked from the Cabinets of the 1990s.

    Cheers,
    RB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. baxter () says:

    Although she has at least three Ministers without porfolio but full pay and perks (the maori list members) David Benson-Parker’s portfolios have been allocated to Mallard of Te Wananga infamy, Hodgson who told us we would get half a billion from the Kyoto Agreement and we wound up owing maybe a billion. The attorney Generalship goes back to the History Teacher because Liabour-Nz First coalition has no other lawyers in their Cabinet. Ah but they do have a lawyer minister outside Cabinet, and Winnie was holding his hand up in the house this afternnon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Craig Ranapia () says:

    RB wrote:
    Given what people who know more about these things than me are saying, I’m absolutely certain it would be regarded as being, as judges like to put it, at the lower end of the scale.

    I reply:
    Well, you may be right – but as I said, my crystal ball doesn’t work so I’m sure you’ll excuse me if I don’t bet the farm either way. If Parker is charged I hope (for his sake) that the case for the defense is a damn sight more sure-footed than the rather odd interviews he gave on Cambell Live last night, and Morning Report this morning. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    Looking into my crystal ball – I will guarantee that if that is all there is David Parker will not be seeing the inside of a jail cell. The offence is a general offence – any time you have to declare to the companies office anything this is the section of the act you breach if you lie. From very minor things (like, well, this) to Enron-style falsified accounts.

    To be perfectly honest, I’d see the harshest penalty being imposed in the unlikely event anyone considers this worth prosecuting, would be a s 107 Conviction and Discharge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Logix () says:

    Craig,

    but please make sure you’re on slightly firmer ground before you call me a liar and a hypocrite.

    LOL no…just giving as good as I get. Trust you enjoyed Professor Rickett.

    Rudyard Kipling 1865-1936: summing up Lord Beaverbrook’s political standpoint vis-

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. SPC () says:

    I agree that a conviction and discharge is all the court process would do.

    The whole point of recent days, is pressure from Brash on the police to prosecute anyway.

    Given this is an offence with a maximum sentence of more than two years, he would then leave parliament.

    The question for the police – if they prosecuted everyone guilty of this offence to that end – conviction and discharge – whenever information was brought forward. Should they waste a lot of their and court time?

    Does National want that, for the sake of Brash getting some sense of becoming closer (some as yet unknown pressure on NZF to back Labour with this sort of thing serving as a public justification) to being PM before the Nats move him on?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. insider () says:

    The question now is, who will replace him?

    My completely uninformed guess is Cunliffe because HC won’t want a major reshuffle so soon after the election and he already is dealing with ‘nfrastructure’ and associated regulatory issues in his current role, which is also being managed by MED, so he will have familiarity with the officials.

    Any opinions on what Cunliffe is like?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. reid () says:

    “Any opinions on what Cunliffe is like?”

    A useless lightweight plonker who doesn’t/can’t understand the issues and won’t make hard decisions if his performance as Minister of Communications and Information Technology is anything to go by.

    How’s that?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Insider:

    His nick-name around the traps is ‘Silent T’, and you can decide for yourself whether that’s meant affectionately or not. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. JohnD () says:

    Well done reid.
    Add to that list, Nick smith, Murrey who? McCully, Don foot in Mouth Brash, Wayne pc Mapp napp tapp pratt, I’m sure his names in ther somewere and the rest of the loser bunch of MPs Michelle Boag failed to get rid of.
    Oh! And Gerry Brownlee Minister of Maori affairs.
    What a laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. sagenz () says:

    RB – your words “Morrison wrote to McCully saying the report had uncovered extremely serious shortcomings, so much so that Mogridge, the board chairman, should be dismissed immediately. The auditor-general was surprised by this advice, especially given that the board had never even seen a draft of the report – and that its authors at Price Waterhouse made plain their view that their report did not support or justify Morrison’s advice to the minister.” – So a political vendetta then – in your words.

    Mogridge was a successful businessman and a reasonable choice for the Tourism Board. Quite why you think that McCully acted inappropriately in that case I have no idea.
    Are you just trying to sling shit and muddy the issue in the best labour tradition? helen would be proud

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Russell Brown () says:

    Looking into my crystal ball – I will guarantee that if that is all there is David Parker will not be seeing the inside of a jail cell. The offence is a general offence – any time you have to declare to the companies office anything this is the section of the act you breach if you lie. From very minor things (like, well, this) to Enron-style falsified accounts.

    I see the Acting Registrar of Companies is in the Herald this morning comparing it to a traffic offence.

    Of course, if he fails to ruin Parker’s career by prosecuting, or even by prosecuting under a lesser section of the act, this will doubtless be greeted as evidence of sweeping corruption, blah blah …

    Cheers,
    RB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Of course, Russell, if similar leniency is shown to a scion of the Fletcher or Todd clans – or any other Remuera Brahman or Paratai Drive flash Harry – I’m sure nobody on the left is going to see that as further proof that the Companies Office is nothing more than a glove puppet of coropratist privilege blah blah…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. tim barclay () says:

    A section 107 conviction and discharge will not do it for Mr Parker because that would see him out of parliament. He would need to get a 106 (i.e. the conviction is wiped and deemed an acquittal) for him to be in the safe harbour and remain a member of parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. sagenz () says:

    given that parker has admitted he was aware he was committing an offence, and he committed at least one while he was an MP it would be a very bold acting registrar who let on that the law was pointless. Let the court decide that a s 106 (thanks Tim) is a reasonable outcome, not a bureaucrat whose career depends on helen

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Craig Ranapia () says:

    And let’s all keep an eye on the Companies Office and make sure exactly the same standard is applied to the four million of us who don’t happen to be members of the Government caucus. :) I very much doubt there will be the same floods of media and political sympathy, but never mind…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Russell Brown () says:

    Mogridge was a successful businessman and a reasonable choice for the Tourism Board. Quite why you think that McCully acted inappropriately in that case I have no idea.
    Are you just trying to sling shit and muddy the issue in the best labour tradition? helen would be proud

    It might have been more useful to have quoted this part:


    In February 1998, something odd happened. A little tourism advisory unit was transferred from the Department of Commerce to the Department of Internal Affairs in order that it might be combined with another unit. Together, they became the Office of Tourism and Sport.

    Can anybody else see a compelling synergy between tourism and sport – beyond the fact that McCully was minister of both and the impression that he wanted to build his own little empire at the taxpayer’s expense?

    Incredibly, it didn’t stop there. McCully set up another body, known as the Tourism and Sport Ministerial Advisory Board. Its role, apparently, was to advise and support the director of the Office of Tourism and Sport, which in turn would advise the Minister himself.

    You might well wonder what the hell was going on here – especially given that the auditor general could find no evidence that Cabinet even knew about the TSMAB, let alone approved it. It was entirely McCully’s idea, and the way it is constituted – with the minister himself appointing all members – has no precedent in the New Zealand public service.

    And this isn’t even getting into the disastrous golden handshake part of the story, or the statement by the incoming chair that McCully and his advisors had “virtually paralysed the board and prevented the directors from working in the best interests of tourism at a critical time for New Zealand.”

    If you think that’s appropriate, I think we have a different understanding of what “appropriate” means.

    Cheers,
    RB

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    I understand a s 107 would see Parker out of Parliament – I’m not saying that that is the most likely outcome; I’m saying that that is the worst I see happening.

    Which is largely why I don’t even think the Companies Office should investigate, let alone lay charges. In the grand scheme of Companies Act offences this is a speeding ticket.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Very interesting, Graeme. I’m sure there are thousands of people out praying you end up running Work and Income or the IRD, and sooner rather than later. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Craig Ranapia () says:

    Very interesting, Graeme. I’m sure there are thousands of people out there praying you end up in charge of Work and Income or the IRD, and sooner rather than later. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. sagenz () says:

    Russell – please tell me your standard is not some wastage of government money through payoffs and overlapping funding. McCully may well have been involved in payoffs caused by political vendettas. But he is a complete amateur compared to the waste of Maharey & Mallard.

    Parker committed a deliberate fraud. He did not want to have to ask the 1/3 shareholder to sign off McCully was guilty of over exuberance.

    Your point is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SPC () says:

    One question for those investigating is – is the one director with issues about not being consulted about there being no auditing a legitimate director when a declared bankrupt?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    A legitimate director – no.

    This isn’t about his rights as a director, it’s about his rights as a shareholder. The resolution we’re discussing is one made with the consent of all shareholders (which can be given at the annual meeting of shareholders or in writing otherwise).

    And certainly the rights as a shareholder remained once Hyslops bankruptcy was discharged.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. G () says:

    As someone who knows David Parker personally and a lawyer (although a “blue” one) I think DP’s resignation is a real shame.

    This is all about context.

    I have seen seen thousands of these annual returns filed and I can tell you that with small closely held companies (i.e less than five shareholders who all know each other pretty well), this is probably the most flouted piece of legislation in the Companies Act.

    A number of companies just “exist”, they don’t trade, they have no assets – there is no point auditing them.

    Why, because you would come to the same conclusion – the company has assets of zero and doesn’t trade – you’d just get the pleasure of being billed for the confirmation

    The holding of shareholders meetings for companies like this doesn’t happen. EVER.

    Yes he committed an offence. Although the references I see to “white collar crime” and the disgraceful interview where Holmes acted like Parker had just drowned a baby was beyond a joke.

    What has happened here is that an ex-business partner decided to take a shot at Parker and succeeded in getting him sacked. It’s that simple.

    Seriously – want to have some fun? Find all the companies that have politians as directors/shareholder, particularly the closely held ones. Do an investigation to see whether any of them have committed the same offence of Parker. We’ll probably only have about 3 polititians left. It seriuously is just a joke someone has to resign over this.

    Did he do the right thing? No, he should as a “matter of law” have checked with his business partner that he didn’t want the company’s accounts audited. If yes, he should have drafted a resolution and put it on the company register to cover his ass.

    Should we hang him? Don’t be stupid. There are about three intelligent politians in parliament and he is one of them.

    Level of this offence in this context – the equivalent of a spedding ticket.

    Same offence committed by a director of a public company – equivalent of white collar crime (but only if done to intentionally deny shareholders of their rights).

    A joke.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Graeme Edgeler () says:

    “The holding of shareholders meetings for companies like this doesn’t happen. EVER.”

    There doesn’t need to be a meeting. Whilst the general meeting of a company can unanimously approve a decision not to have the accounts audited, it can also be legally done by everyone signing a resolution (as happened in the two years when DP did everything legally).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote