Turia must name names
September 29th, 2006 at 9:10 am by David FarrarTariana Turia has to back up her allegations of being offered money in return for agreeing to back Labour, or withdraw the claim.
This is not a trivial issue. Is is an accusation of serious illegal behaviour, and blatant vote buying.
Clark’s billionaire friend, Owen Glenn, whom many thought fitted the description, has denied it was him. He says he has never even heard of Mrs Turia. How reassuring that the biggest donor in NZ politics is so well informed!!
A suggestion someone made yesterday was that an MP could write to the Speaker asking this matter go before the Privileges Committee. Turia was an MP last year and by her own words this was someone wanting to pay $250,000 so she and others would vote in favour of Labour on confidence and supply.
If Turia is unwilling to back up her allegation, then she can not expect to be taken credibly on other issues. You can’t make such allegations without proof.
No tag for this post.
September 29th, 2006 at 9:26 am
Write to the speaker asking this matter go before the Privileges Committee…
I laughed and lauged, it’s not good news for Labour and you think the speaker will do something about it…. You are a very funny guy DPF.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:35 am
I, too, was stunned that Owen Glenn says he has not heard of Mrs Turia. He is, of course, free to donate to any party he likes, but I’m surprised he does so without even a superficial knowledge of the NZ political scene.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:42 am
“A suggestion someone made yesterday was that an MP could write to the Speaker asking this matter go before the Privileges Committee.”
There is no issue of privilege. The purported ‘bribe’ occurred during the last Parliament, not the current one.
“If Turia is unwilling to back up her allegation, then she can not expect to be taken credibly on other issues. You can’t make such allegations without proof.”
I disagree. Whilst I think Turia should probably name names, keeping one’s promise of a confidence, even if the face of pressure or ridicule can be seen as honourable. If the Maori party can’t keep a promise of confidence, why would we believe a promise to cut taxes, or repeal the foreshore and seabed law?
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:51 am
” Is is an accusation of serious illegal behaviour”
With respect David, I do not think that it is illegal.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:56 am
I wonder why she chooses to bring this up now, rather than at the time. Also did she think that maybe Labour was behind this, surely that obvious suspicion, and approach Labour about it?
It all sounds a bit weird. She went out on a limb about her phone being tapped but that was only in the paranoid climate that Scoop had created with bizarre conspiracy theories about the SIS.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:58 am
The media need a kick up the arse. Like Ron Mark this morning, it’s all conjecture with no facts to back it up, but still they report the idle ramblings of Turia and the Deputy Poodle. Any MP could go to the paper and say the EB offered $$$ for XYZ with no facts or evidence to back it up. The Deputy Poodle’s comments this morning just look like an attempt to deflect any flak from Labour over the Turia issue. Puerile and pathetic – both on Mark’s behlaf and that of the media who choose to shoot first and ask questions later.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:02 am
Well, here’s the form of Mr. Glenn’s denial.
Labour Party president Mike Williams said today that the mystery would-be donor is not Owen Glenn, the ex-pat millionaire who has given donations to Labour.
Mr Williams phoned Mr Glenn in London this morning and he says he did not offer the Maori Party any money and has never even heard of Mrs Turia.
Hum… this is why Tariana Turia has to come forward and name names. To paraphrase Miss Mandy Rice-Davies, “He would say that, wouldn’t he?”
I can just about believe that Owen Glenn roughly knows nothing about a political party – and a campaign – he’s pumped enormous amounts of money into. (Is this guy Exclusive Brethren or something?) But for the sake of argument, if he’d told Mike Williams that every word Tariana Turia said was true do you really think the president of the Labour Party would say to the media, “Yup, I’ve just heard from the source it’s all true!”
We can let incredibly serious allegations degenerate into rounds of he says/she says claims and counterclaims, rumours and innuendo, but there’s a very simple way to end it. Turia goes to the Police and names names and lays a complaint that will be rigorously investigated. If the Police decide there’s a case to prosecute for breeches of the Crimes Act (though they’ve not got a particularly good tract record of taking electoral law seriously), and a High Court Justice gives leave for a prosecution to be brought under S. 103, then I expect the trial would be held in an open court.
Not really that hard, IMO…
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:03 am
I guess it’s not likely to be illegal as sonic is required to suggest because of his ideology.
If using $800,000 of tax payer money isn’t illegal then why would an offer of a piffling $250,000 have any ramifications.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:06 am
keeping one’s promise of a confidence, even if the face of pressure or ridicule can be seen as honourable
But surely even mentioning that the ‘donation’ was offered is a breach of that promise? I think Turia opened her mouth without thinking (again). Unless she knew that third party was going to make it known that this ‘donation’ had been offered.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:09 am
I’m not qualified to comment on the law. But in the court of public opinion, this would be unacceptable. Presumably that’s why the Maori Party – desperate for cash, remember – turned it down.
The idea that the Maori Party thought this was no big deal, but refused the money anyway, is barely credible.
Tariana Turia can’t play the innocent on this. If she was smart enough to see that her own party would be tainted by the offer/bribe, surely she was smart enough to see that it could taint Labour if it were “accidentally” made (semi) public.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:12 am
He doesn’t know who Tariana is?
Perhaps he thinks Labour is still run by the Rogernomes?
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:12 am
” You can’t make such allegations without proof.”
You forgot to add; “unless you are Trevour Mallard”
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:16 am
“Any MP could go to the paper and say the EB offered $$$ for XYZ with no facts or evidence to back it up”
Very prophetic.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3813021a10,00.html
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:20 am
I think she’s opened her mouth without thinking, trying to get a bit of attention with the currently hot issue of election funding.
She’s not going to come out of this looking good and if it turns out not to be true then she’ll be in big trouble.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:25 am
“Tariana Turia can’t play the innocent on this. If she was smart enough to see that her own party would be tainted by the offer/bribe, surely she was smart enough to see that it could taint Labour if it were “accidentally” made (semi) public.”
Yes, when taking about this we should keep in mind that Turia vehemently dislikes Helen Clark, and she is a vindictive person. So this is why I don’t believe that these revelations are necessarily very strategically astute. She merely wants to put the hurt on Helen in destabilising her leadership, otherwise she wouldn’t have said anything. I don’t think that it’s a move that can possibly benefit her party as a whole, and I don’t think that was the intention.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:32 am
“Any MP could go to the paper and say the EB offered $$$ for XYZ with no facts or evidence to back it up”
Very prophetic.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3813021a10,00.html
But fancy not offering any money. Wot an insult!
JC
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:35 am
“Pressure was exerted”. So no carrot for NZ First? As Dominion Breweries say, yeah right…
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Despite honour – Tania loses all credibility if she doesn’t come up with the whole truth. Not good for the future of the Maori Party. I wonder what Pita makes of all of this…?
At least the EB’s actually checked the policy of the parties before deciding on their preferences, rather than using their money to change or influence party policies. (I pretty much discount Marks’ claims – you should have heard his equivocation on Morning Report).
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 11:14 am
Makes one wonder about Winston Peters and Peter Dunne.
Thay would be upset if they didnt receive an monetary offer but still supported labour.
Or did they receive monetory contributions to support labour??
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 11:17 am
I can hear it now, just like free meals at a seafood restaurant…
Yes we received money but it made no difference to our position. If you are suggesting otherwise I’ll drag you into court for these baseless alegations…..
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 11:26 am
“Or did they receive monetory contributions to support labour??”
I don’t know, did they? Is Don Brash a P-addict? Is the Maori Party linked to the KKK? Does Rodney Hide eat live parrots? Does anybody bother checking these stories any more?
“An expert in ornithology and nutrition today cast doubt on the claims about the ACT leader, which he has strenuously denied, but we’ll just blather on about them a bit more, because we can, and it’s a lot easier than finding out …”
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 11:52 am
“Or did they receive monetory contributions to support labour??”
Jobs like “minister of foreign affairs” and “minister of revenue” tend to carry higher pay packets than “leader of a minor opposition party” dont they?
Fletcher.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 12:10 pm
I see that the Electoral Commission has said that in their opinion it can’t be construed as an offer of a bribe, because the offer wasn’t made directly to an MP and the Crimes Act limits the bribing offence to people acting in their capacity as MPs.
But, but but! The condition was that the Maori Party support Labour, presumably this extends to them voting to support Labour in Parliament so that *does* include people acting in their capacity as MPs. How can the offer of money in return for support in the House for your favourite party not be a bribe?
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
I see that the Electoral Commission has said that in their opinion it can’t be construed as an offer of a bribe, because the offer wasn’t made directly to an MP and the Crimes Act limits the bribing offence to people acting in their capacity as MPs.
But, but but! The condition was that the Maori Party support Labour, presumably this extends to them voting to support Labour in Parliament so that *does* include people acting in their capacity as MPs. How can the offer of money in return for support in the House for your favourite party not be a bribe?
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
Cathi:
That’s an opinion, but since when did the Labour Party have any regard for the legal reasoning of our electoral agencies.
I’d also note that the indirect quote attributed to the Electoral Commission is nowhere near as certain as you’ve stated.
National Party leader Don Brash claimed that the anonymous donor was attempting to buy votes and was guilty of corruption, but the Electoral Commission said he did not appear to have breached the law.
A spokesman said there was nothing to ban conditional donations under the Electoral Act despite the allegation that the intent was to influence the formation of the government.
It looks like the Electoral Commission have, quite properly, restricted their commentary to the Electoral Act implications and said nothing about the Crimes Act. Despite what Sonic’s been asserting, I don’t think we can assume there would be no case that Turia’s allegation constitute at least a prima facae case that S. 103 of the Crimes Act has been breeched, and further investigation has been warranted.
Mrs. Turia could help that investigation by going to the Police, naming names, and promising to fully cooperate with any investigation and any prosecution that may come from that.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Hmmmm, either I woefully misread the Stuff article (not impossible) or they’ve since edited it. I thought the EC talked about the Crimes Act but I see it was Maharey.
Forget I said anything. I’ve never paid any attention to anything Maharey says and I don’t want to start now. Sorry everyone
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 1:35 pm
The problem is we have now decended in to a level of Alice in Wonderland where if a prominent person pulled out a gun and shot someone dead in front of a hundred people debate would rage around whether
1. A crime had been commiteed
2. Whether the police should be called
3. Whether the police would actually turn up
4. Whether the poilice should charge the gunperson or not.
Fact is Turia should have gone to the Police when or if the event occurred and reported it then and there and demanded they investigate.
Vote:She is another example of the failures that attempt to take part in the governance of this country
September 29th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
Cathi:
Don’t beat youself up, I thought the attribution was less than crystal clear too when I first read it. Especially as it struck me as damn weird (as well as highly inappropriate) the Electoral Commission would be publicly commenting on any matter not directly relevant to electoral law.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
GD – you don’t even need to have a hundred people. All you have to do is go to some less than thorough journo and say “I saw GD shoot someone in front of a hundred people.”
Vote:If they ask for names of the hundred people, all you have to do is say “I didn’t know them”, and QED, GD gets locked up thanks to the media…
September 29th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
My pick is that it was Sonic’s overlord Castro or his side-kick Chavez. They would see $250k as a cheap invesment to keep NZ a south pacific socialist paradise.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 2:51 pm
“Overlord”
Now there is a word you do not hear often these days!
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
The police have said that, despite there most likely being a prima facie case, no investigation will be launched until an official complaint has been laid.
I can only assume National needs no further encouragement to go ahead and actually lay that complaint…
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Ignore sonic. He lives in a mental hospital in the South Island and can’t think due to the illegal drugs that put him there in the first place, and the legal drugs to try and sort him out.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:22 pm
Tell me Swifters old bean, have you always had that talent of being totally wrong about everything?
It is a rare gift, treasure it.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
prima facie? you mean the prime minister’s facing ? This confirms Labour’s involvement.
Don’t worry, in the interest of their pension plans, our senior police will decide not to pursue it.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
And sonic knows very well how to treasure that gift…. As we see from every single post he makes.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:29 pm
In my view if she gave her word that the interview was in confidence then she has to keep it…Her allegation that the prospective patron had made a large donation to Liabour was in response to Liabour’s holier than thou assertions that National had received monies from the EBs
Vote:Did this patron also offer money to NZ First? Well isn’t it strange how Ron Mark has belatedly tried to turn the spotlight back on National. My advice to National would be to build good will with the Maori Party,ignore the controversy, and concentrate on the stolen money. PAY IT BACK LIABOUR>
September 29th, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Yes Burt.
You can always tell when people’s arguments run out of steam, they start playing the man as the ball has long since gone.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
Sounds remarkably like Labour’s ‘corrosive and cancerous’ strategy to defeat Nationals lead in the polls really. Rule one – always accuse your opponent of your most obvious fault.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
Yes sonic,
Shooting the messsenger is something that Labour have made an art form of.
That $800,000 tax payer money ball was almost gone with the Brash putting it about distraction, but luckily it’s not lost yet.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Whatever Burt, have a good weekend mate.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
Thanks sonic,
You rest up as well. It’s just 11 days now till the A-G report lands in Parliament. You will be very busy posting when 4.2m people start calling out PAY IT BACK
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 5:25 pm
Poor little Sonic – No friends, morally deficient and still trying for the common touch.
aye mate??????(6)
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 7:09 pm
Yesterday Tariana stated that the money was offered by a wealthy business man who lves overseas and today she does not know who it was!
The Maori party president stated yesterday they met with the third party on two ocassions and now they don’t know who they met or who he represented!
What’s the chance of them forgeting they signed a treaty 156 years ago!!!!
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Yesterday Tariana stated that the money was offered by a wealthy business man who lves overseas and today she does not know who it was!
The Maori party president stated yesterday they met with the third party on two ocassions and now they don’t know who they met or who he represented!
What’s the chance of them forgeting they signed a treaty 156 years ago!!!!
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
Do not think anyone will put their hand up for this when even Labour people are saying it is criminal to bribe somene to vote with Labour. So it will not go far. But the conversation with Mrs Turia was probably in breach of the Crimes Act so that person could be charged and presumably Mrs Turia knows the identity of the intermediary.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 11:02 pm
Just to clarify for new visitors – this site is actually David Farrars.
One could be forgiven for thinking it belonged to some complete mental defective denial monkey and leftist tool.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 8:23 am
NOT naming names may becoming an acceptable
Vote:defence for the Maaori.If this is to continue ,why should not all others believe they may use these exclusive beliefs ?.
September 30th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Thanks for clarifying that Murray.
I was begining to wonder myself. Then again could just be those drugs I scored of phule the other day.
phew, you get the best stuff on a benefit.eh.
I wonder if sonic scores off him too……..
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 11:29 am
Sounds like even if names were named the only evidence would be hearsay. Which is probably going to be a more common fixture of political life, certainly has been for a few weeks.
I think probably the bulk of voters will just become more attuned to the difference between hearsay and evidence, and not particularly impressed by either when they pertain only to character and not to policy.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 6:56 pm
Ben – certainly the only evidence from Turia as or the Maori Party as to the identity of the businessman would be (inadmissible) hearsay, someone investigating (e.g. the police) could use that information to question:
1. The intermediary, whose knowledge of the businessman and any offer would likely not be inadmissible hearsay
2. The businessman
3. Associates of the businessman
Turia’s evidence might not be helpful in court – that doesn’t mean it couldn’t be used by the Police to get cogent evidence that would be helpful in any court case.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Graeme, sure. It *could* work like that. Or it *could* be hearsay, and that’s my bet. The intermediary, if there is one, could just deny everything, or refuse to even talk to the police. The businessman could deny everything. The associates would probably only have hearsay on their side too, even if they wanted to hurt their associate. Unless there is paper, which I imagine Turia would be waving around if there was any, it’s all word against word.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Ben – absolutely – I just don’t think the possibility that the police might not find admissible evidence is a particularly good reason for them not to investigate.
Maybe they’ll strike it lucky. Probably not. But there’s something for them to look into. And they should.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
Graeme, since Turia is suggesting she won’t name names, there’s really nowhere to start for the police. I’m thinking her real reason for not naming names is because slander can be an expensive hobby, but wild unfounded allegations are just the lingua franca of kiwi politics in the last few weeks.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
And if you’re right about her real reason – then her talking to the police (but not talking publically) seems a sensible thing to do.
And they do have somewhere to start. With Turia. A suggestion someone won’t name names wouldn’t be enough to halt an investigation into myriad crimes less serious than corrupt bribery, why should it be for this? And if Turia won’t talk then Professor Winiata might, or someone else. Or maybe no-one. But it’s not a reason not to try at all.
Seriously though – multi-millionaire who gave money to Labour – how many of these can there be?
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
Graeme, I didn’t say noone should try. I just bet they don’t succeed.
As for Labour’s support amongst the wealthy – the concept of the rich person who does what they think is right, not just what is right for their back pocket, is not impossible. If you think that’s unlikely, then you don’t really have a high opinion of the wealthy.
Vote: