Who offered $250,000 to Maori Party to back Labour?
September 28th, 2006 at 2:25 pm by David FarrarTariana Turia is under pressure to reveal who made the offer of $250,000 in campaign funding if they agreed to back Labour, and who was the third party “wealthy individual” the offer was on behalf of.
The offer was made not once but twice according to Turia who says she understood the potential donor lived outside New Zealand, and had donated money to the Labour Party.
Seems to be one obvious candidate. I am sure the media will be asking him if it was him.
Labour claim to know nothing about this. Perhaps then they should set up a propoer commission of inquiry into the allegations so that the truth can come out and they can be cleared. I’d even be happy for the Commssision to also investigate Helen and Trevor’s claims of National accepting bribes for policy as it would be superb to have them actually have to produce proof of their claims.
No tag for this post.
September 28th, 2006 at 2:44 pm
They really are extraordinary claims by Turia. There is obviously only one major candidate at this stage. If the allegations are true–and Turia doesn’t have a history of telling untruths–it is impossible to believe that there was no connivance from the Labour Party to put that into effect.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
Proof?? they don’t have any. (Helen and Trevor that is)
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
Boot on other foot now isnt you Socialists supporters. Time to replay your comments re the EBs What goes around Comes around.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 2:58 pm
Perhaps Prime Minister Helen Clark can now provide detail of ALL the meetings she has had with Owen Glenn. At the Americas Cup Millenium race dinner, what did she talk about with him? What did she promise him? Was it that any new Freight tax would be “gone by lunchtime?”
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I know this blog is inhabited by people whose loathing for Labour blinds them to reality, but here it is anyway:
As always, the responsibility lies with the person making the allegation. So when did Turia know about this, what did she do, and why did she not immediately make it known? The questions should be asked of her, not the smeared party, about whom nobody has produced any evidence whatsoever. (If you have some, go ahead).
But don’t let that stop you deciding the verdict before we even know there’s been a crime.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
How much money was handed over again, $0.00?
Mr Teacup, let me introduce you to Mr Storm.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:08 pm
Cuba beckons sonic the serf.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
Ah Sonic from the Crimes Act 1991:
Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [7 years] who corruptly gives or OFFERS or agrees to give any bribe to any person with intent to influence any member of Parliament in respect of any act or omission by him in his capacity as a member of Parliament.
Note the “offers” part.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:10 pm
sonic, is that all you got? One of Labours main contributors is implicated in trying to buy another parties support for Labour and thats all you can say.
Excellant, must be true then. At least the EB’s were out in the open but this is an example of blatant attempted bribery.And kept secret.
simon g “as always the rersponsibilty lies with the person making the allegations” Oh fuck off you total hypocrite. Go and read all the unprovable shit thrown at Brash (got any proof of his affair yet?)
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
The shades of irony in this are quite outstanding. I can only imagine the level of lead in stomach that must be being felt in Labour circles. I almost feel sorry for them.
Not only could this bring all the EB stuff home to roost, but there are other things like the American bag man type attacks that could all rebound at the same time.
The most interesting thing is the timing of the release. I never had much opinion of Turia, but recently she has shown herself quite astute, expecially in the way she quickly brought her MPs into line over the Koha comments. I guess she is even more ticked off with Labour than with National, because this announcement will take attention away from Brash’s Maori blood line comments & put the attention right back on the Labour election scandals.
There is also quite a bit of potential for having fun, by recycling a lot of the last two months posts, (after doing a quick text replace, say “Shady Aussie Businessman for EBs, Labour for National & Maori Party for Greens).
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Sonic, by your logic, if I (as an ACT Party member) was to offer United Future a large amount of money for support (on a Bill or for confidence and supply), it would be ok for me to do so if they turned it down??
I see…
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
I find this hilarious. Helen must be wondering “oh ffs what next”.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Andrew, as a citizen you are perfectly entitled to give money to any political party you wish. The same is true of the person who is alledged to have done this.
However I have a solution I’m sure you will all agree with. Lets end anonymous donations completely (say all of those over $1000)
Problem solved.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Or better yet, for the Brethren to do so…
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
From the Herald:
- Asked if she had taken any action over the offer, which seemed an attempt to influence the party, Mrs Turia said she hadn’t. “What would be the point?”
Tariana Turia needs a basic lesson in civics. I repeat my questions above.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:23 pm
“Andrew, as a citizen you are perfectly entitled to give money to any political party you wish. The same is true of the person who is alleged to have done this.”
Sonic, I have read your posts and sometimes thought, well he has a point, but please, the issue isn’t giving money, it is offering to give money with strings attached. Even the act of offering with strings is illegal in New Zealand.
Surely you can see what is wrong with that?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:27 pm
I don’t see it JAUHUB, I doubt very much if the conduct being discussed is illegal, although I am open to correction by someone more famliar with that part of election law.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:31 pm
So that’s the problem. The left don’t even understand what a bribe is.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:32 pm
Sonic: it is a Crimes Act issue. Open your eyes.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Sonic – ” as a citizen you are perfectly entitled to give money to any political party you wish ”
Vote:Did I miss something? Are the EB’s citizens? Are they entitled to give money to any political party they wish?
Just wondering?
September 28th, 2006 at 3:34 pm
So Sonic, if it was revealed tomorrow that National was accepting money from the US to fund their campaigns, “cash for policy” as Labour has called it, you would have no problem with that??
As for its legality, Scoop has conveniently provided a link to Section 103 of the Crimes Act.
http://www.legislation.govt.nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi.dll?clientID=980622370&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes.nfo&jump=a1961-043%2fs.103&softpage=DOC
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
simon g has a valid point about allegations & evidence.
Nothing is proved yet, and Turia’s comments are unsubstantiated at the moment. That should be kept in mind.
This raises 2 possible scenarios.
1: Turia is mistaken, or telling lies. This would probably spell the end of the Maori party. It begs the question why she would take the risk if she did not have evidence.
2: She is telling the truth. Bad news for Labour. Even if there are no direct links (though having made a donation to Labour is at least an implicit link) this does raise “serious questions” that will need answering if or when evidence is produced.
Turia is either the village idiot of politics, or a very astute politician who is still very very ticked off with Labour. (My opinion is that she is more astute than she has been given credit for)
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Why was this person whoever he/she is so dead keen to get a Labour Government. It is a very bold thing to do.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Doesn’t matter, Don Brash met with the exclusive bretheren…
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Tim – 3 possible reasons
1. S/He used to live here but hated it and want revenge on NZers.
2. S/He lived here when Roger Douglas was making bold changes and think the current lot will continue his work. (deluded fool)
3. S/He believes in freedom for themselves, but thinks the rest of us need to be told how to live our lives – and let’s face it, Labour are pretty good at that.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Exactly, no direct link needed since by Helen’s logic if someone supports you then you must be responsible for all their subsequent actions.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:49 pm
Ain’t life just sooooo fucken beautiful sometimes?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:51 pm
So, on the same day Turiana says she doesn’t want to talk to Don Brash anymore, she gives him a present that he couldn’t have dreamt of.
Vote:How curious?
September 28th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
Sorry guys still don’t see the crime.
If I said to an ACT member (for example) “If you guys would only agree to keep the ERA I’d donate some money to you” would I be facing 7 years in prison?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 3:59 pm
just when you think that liarbour couldn’t get any worse more corruption allegations are dug up. Surely this has to raise serious questions with her rabid supporters now, but sadly sonic suggests not
Vote:- he ‘doubts if the conduct is illegal’ – what are you on? Not only as discussed yes it is illegal – it is ethically & morally corrupt
September 28th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
Funny what we choose to see, isn’t it, according to our political stripe? All very Rashomon.
The headline for me is “Party leader witholds information about alleged corruption”. For how long? Since before the election? And this is not just “alleged”; it’s a first-hand admission, by Turia herself.
Isn’t anybody just a little bit bothered by that?
Or to put it another way, what would you do if you had this information?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
You know, if the Green party had a smarter energy policy I might give them a donation..
Oh no it’s the police!
Sorry chaps, still don’t see it.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
Forgive me for hi-jacking this thread, but has anybody seen the post over on:
http://generation-xy.blogspot.com/
“TOP TEN #39: Questions that will bring down a government”
Is this for real?
And if it is, is something huge about to happen?
Someone seems to think they know something cos you just wouldnt post that kind of stuff without some fairly compeling evidence would you?
If so the Dam might be about to burst!
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:03 pm
That’s what I thought: Existing Labour donor is interested in supporting the Maori Party, but not if it’s going to with National.
A bit like the well-known “no Brash, no cash” ultimatum the National Party received from the business lobby via the fragrant Ms Foreman, except that at present it remains only an allegation.
But having made the allegation, Turia cannot now step back. She has to say who talked to her rather than let the innuendo hang in the air like this.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
September 28th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
sonic There is the Law There are ethics and there are morals. If you cant understand that ( and most Socialists and their supporters cant) then its a waste of oxygen trying to explain it. For those who do understand the concepts, a supreme irony is about to be played out. I would put Tarianas statement down to a little incident relating to a high speed drive in the back seat of the Klarkmobile.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:07 pm
sonic There is the Law There are ethics and there are morals. If you cant understand that ( and most Socialists and their supporters cant) then its a waste of oxygen trying to explain it. For those who do understand the concepts, a supreme irony is about to be played out. I would put Tarianas statement down to a little incident relating to a high speed drive in the back seat of the Klarkmobile.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
IP said: “If the allegations are true–and Turia doesn’t have a history of telling untruths…”
Well, apart from talking about a “holocaust” in Taranaki and about Maori who suffer from “post-colonial stress syndrome” — which you could justifiably just call nonsense rather than untruth — and the more recent claim that she was being bugged (about which there was no evidence beyond her radio making a funny noise) you might be right…
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
Reading the relevent law carefully the legal argument will come down to how you define the word “bribe”
The legal dictionary (USA) has this definition.
“the crime of giving or taking money or some other valuable item in order to influence a public official (any governmental employee) in the performance of his/her duties”
I don’t really think a party donation conditional on who the MP would work with in parliament fits that definition.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:15 pm
I see according to Radio NZ both Labour and National are urging her to name names and she’s refusing, saying the discussions were “confidential”.
But not so confidential, apparently, that she couldn’t make public allegations on the basis of them.
WTF?
I’ve been assuming something indeed happened, but I’m now wondering if we don’t have a re-run of her I-was-bugged-by-the-SIS story.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
September 28th, 2006 at 4:19 pm
RB – is that a fair comparison? If you think that it is going to be a waste putting your money in if say Bill English is leading and there is no chance of winning then it is kind of a business decision. Would be different if it was “no privatisation of ACC – no cash” which I think this would fall into and is a more direct mechanism to attempt to affect policy.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:20 pm
Sonic & others might like to read this:
http://www.sirhumphreys.com/gooner/2006/sep/20/cash_for_policies
Sonic has a point I think. First, the offer must be a ‘corrupt’ offer. That has to be proved. Then, the element of intent to influence has by way of a bribe has to be proved. Then, I am not sure whether the ‘act…in his capacity as a member of Parliament’ would apply. The alleged act asked of Turia was not necesarily one in her capacity as a MP. My view is that this section of the Crimes Act refers to instances similar to Philip Field, and not ones alleged here.
Nevertheless the whole things stinks like the remnants of John Keys rubbish bin.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
Clearly, the big question now is was the same or a similar offer made to NZ First and/or United Future? And did they take it? Can’t believe they would have but it be to see Winston’s and Dunn’s blustering reactions to the question.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:23 pm
That’s it, in future all National has to do is get the Brethren to shell out a couple of mill to NZ First, United Future and the Maori Party in order to form a Government. Thanks for clearing that up RB, I always wondered how Helen managed to do it.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Clearly, the big question now is was the same or a similar offer made to NZ First and/or United Future? And did they take it?
Vote:Can’t really believe they would have (I think) but it would be exquisite to see Winston’s and Dunn’s blustering reactions to the question.
September 28th, 2006 at 4:24 pm
RB – is that a fair comparison? If you think that it is going to be a waste putting your money in if say Bill English is leading and there is no chance of winning then it is kind of a business decision.
I think the Brash ultimatum came with fairly clear policy expectations. But you might also say, why put your money in if there’s no chance of a centre-left coalition …
I really have no idea what’s gone on here, but Turia has a huge chip on her shoulder about Labour, and her behaviour in making the allegation in the way she has, then refusing to say who is involved because it’s “confidential” is bizarre.
Cheers,
Vote:RB
September 28th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
Sonic & Gooner are right. The offer is unlikely to be illegal.
However, we are talking politics here, and something does not have to be illegal to be extremely damaging.
Take the EBs. Little (if anything) that they have done has been illegal.
The only court that this stuff is likely to play out in is the court of public opinion. Labour knows well that evidence is not a reqirement for judgement in this court. It has played the system to its advantage, but the public knows this well, meaning Labour is likely to be on the end of a cynical backlash, regardless of whether the allegations have substance.
I hear the fluttering of the chickens returning home for the night.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
The story behind Gooners comment is that John Keys neighbours claim they saw ‘men in suits’ searching through his rubbish.
I was thinking about this last night when I put my own rubbish out. Now if you were a private detective searching through someones garbage would you:
(a) wait until they put it out at night or in the morning and then take it away and search it at your house.
(b) put on a nice suit and search through it on your targets property in full view of their neighbours.
Now, I’m not a fancy big city private detective, but I’d probably go for option a.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:32 pm
In some countries an honest politician is one who stays bought.
It would be a big risk to pay any small party to support Labour as it could all turn to custard 12-18 months into the term.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Clearly, the big question is was the same or a similar offer made to Labour’s actual coalition partners? Specifically NZ First and United Future. (I doubt anybody bothered to call Jim!)
And if they did get the offer did they, unlike the Maori party, take it?
Seems unlikely (probably …) but it would be exquisite to see Peters and Dunn go crimson when they’re asked the question.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:48 pm
It’s a vast left wing conspiracy…
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
I agree it is politics Peter but it is a difficult one to make stick.
Firstly we have the offer coming from a “third party” so there is deniablity there, then the potential donor is unlikely to say that Helen Clark knew about the offer.
Just too much of a stretch IMHO.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Once again, the stench of the sewer wafts over NZ politics …
On the positive side though, I heard on the radio (can’t remember which news programme) that the Maori Party caucus had the offer presented to them, and they unanimously turned it down.
Credit to them for doing so, and moreover, given that level of formality there should be a robust paper trail proving Turia’s claim.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 5:13 pm
I presume it is Owen Glenn surely.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
Danyl, if you steal rubbish you are committing theft and can be prosecuted. That would be very messy (s’cuse the pun) for a PI, especially in these circumstances.
I believe there is no crime committed if you search through it.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
Fucking appalling but reflects the culture of corruption promoted by Clark. Were the other parties paid off it would explain why the Greens are nothing but a bunch of Labor poodles.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 5:19 pm
Sonic,
At another time I might agree that the stickability probability was low.
The current climate is one in which almost any allegation has legs, whomever it is laid against.
My opinion is that, if it sticks, Labour has only its self to blame. Their antics (starting before the last election) with regard to the EBs mean that the slightest taint will tend to return on them, and with interest.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 5:43 pm
“I really have no idea what’s gone on here, but Turia has a huge chip on her shoulder about Labour, and her behaviour in making the allegation in the way she has, then refusing to say who is involved because it’s “confidential” is bizarre.”
But Sharples is still meeting Don. Hard cop, soft cop routine?
One half gets to grandstand against both evil BIG parties but the talks go on with Mr Reasonable.
JC
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
just when you think that liarbour couldn’t get any worse more corruption allegations are dug up
Oh for goodness sake virginblogger, this is not in the slightest bit evidence that Labour is corrupt. If they are, this is not the proof!!
Peter S – I go with ‘Turia for village idiot’.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Those bloody Maori’s trying to spoil Helen Clark and Labours spotlessly clean record with a smear campaign like this, god will they stop at nothing.
This doesn’t surprise me at all, and I am sure this won’t be the last revelation, hell why not add another $250k to the $800K they took’ round it off to about a cool million give or take $50K.
When talking about Clark and Labour – if it looks like shit, smells like shit chances are it is shit.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
Quite amusing to watch sonic, simon g, Andrew Bannister et. al. rediscovering their scepticism where sourceless conspiracy theories are concenrned…
Having said that, I think Mrs. Turia needs to understand that the person who made this offer doesn’t deserve confidentiality. Making a very large donation to a political party is one thing; making a donation in an attempt to (let’s be blunt) purchase the votes of MPs is corrupt. I don’t see a more savoury term for it.
And, while I don’t want to speculate on this person’s identity for quite obvious legal reasons – but the description I heard on Nine to Noon sounds a lot like a certain gentleman who was being trotted around the newsrooms of this country before the last election by Labour Party President Mike Williams like his new supermodel girlfriend. If nothing else, it’s sure not a good look for Labour even if there’s no direct collusion involved.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
Craig,
Those are valid points. While I believe Turia believes what she’s saying, I don’t believe there’s any truth in the claim. The description on nine-to-noon, of a very wealthy expat with links to the Labour Party, is a clearly identifiable person.
Turia owes it to that clearly identifiable person to name the source to clear his name. It simply isn’t acceptable, when everybody knows who that wealthy individual is, for Turia to link that person to such an outrageous activity.
I simply do not believe that the person described would engage in an attempt to bribe the Maori Party. I think Turia’s been duped by her secret but trusted “third party”. Her own credibility is now on the line.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:37 pm
Aah the old Blankets and muskets routine
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Craig R
I can only speak for myself, but I apply the same standard, i.e. a distinction between admission and accusation, between first-hand and second (third, fourth …) hand. So when Wayne Idour or Tariana Turia or anyone else talks about what they themselves did, they are more credible than when they talk about what somebody else says somebody else says (etc.) they did.
Therefore I believe that Wayne Idour was hired to spy on Labour people, and that Tariana Turia was told about an offer. Further down the line, further removed from first hand knowledge, things inevitably get murkier.
So let’s just review what we know (rather than wish to believe):
1. Turia says an offer (if you prefer ‘attempted bribe’, that’s good enough for me) was made, more than a year ago.
2. Turia says she did nothing about this. Did not inform any authority. Not before, during or after the election campaign.
3. Turia finally tells us about this, now.
4. Having brought the story to public attention, she then says she does not want to say more. She has alleged something very serious … a year late, to the media rather than police or other relevant authority, and without providing further information to substantiate the story – information which she says she has.
So based on what we know, there is indeed a serious problem of ethics here. Tariana Turia’s.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:56 pm
In Gooner’s paraphrasing of Tariana’s comment to Kerre Woodham on a recent weekend radio show (see link above, which I followed back to Kiwiblog), he reports her saying the would-be donor was an “organisation” not an individual.
Gooner:
Well, let me paraphrase Tariana Turia on Kerre Woodham’s Newstalk ZB show on Saturday morning:
Kerre: “Did you receive Koha before the last election?”
Tariana: “We had an organisation willing to give us a huge amount of cash in return for us agreeing to go with Labour after the election. Money we really needed”
Did Gooner get it wrong or are there different versions of the story being put about?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
I’m not sure if you can be charged with theft if you take someones rubbish once they’ve put it out on the street. I’m pretty sure you can be charged with trespass if you stand around on their property sorting through their trash.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
I’ve just been listening to the Checkpoint interview with the Maori Party President (standing in for Turia), to answer questions about her claim.
Winiata: “It was probably a consequence of a ‘side comment’, that’s what Tariana told me… and if she’d been a bit more attentive to that… – she certainly didn’t make it deliberately….”
Interviewer: “So it just slipped out?”
Winiata: “Yes. It’s certainly not a deliberate action…”
A slip of the tongue, eh? Twice in two weeks? Yeah, right.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 8:37 pm
“I’m pretty sure you can be charged with trespass if you stand around on their property sorting through their trash.”
Nope.
You have to be asked and refuse to leave to commit a criminal trespass.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Another example.
If I say to Tariana, “I would like to see the Maori Party commit to supporting Labour, I think it makes good sense for both sides and wouldl certainly make me more likely to make a large donation. Is that policy under review at all?”
No crime there.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:02 pm
Sonic:
In the context of the campaign, I think you could have found the answer in any newspaper. But I guess expat billionaires don’t bother with tiresome things like reading…
Still, it would be nice if Deep Pocket outed himself so those questions – and many others – could be asked on the record.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:08 pm
It might fly Craig. I thought the pledge card would not and I was wrong about that.
However if we do have a public that is “sick of sleeze” will anyone want it to?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:10 pm
sonic:
How is that scenario so different, and so more morally just, than the cash for policies allegations that you were sustaining without evidence against the National Party just ten days ago?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
sonic,
Vote:you are like a cat ,teasing a bunch of demented dogs, stir them up, ,more power to sonic.
September 28th, 2006 at 9:20 pm
The allegation of a serious crime has been made and her failure to give further details has to be seen as aiding and abetting. If she didn’t want to put up, she should have stayed shut up!
Pity she’ll probably get away with her sensationalist little headline grab. Regardless of whether its true or no, she pisses me off.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
IP, I do have a problem with large anonymous donations for either side.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:27 pm
Don’t be disingenuous, Sonic. Your previous slur about the National Party was not about anonymous donations. You directly linked it to a further claim that the National Party was dishing favours to anonymous donors; that National was selling policies to the highest bidder. You made those claims without any factual evidence.
Now when Tariana Turia claims that a person closely associated with the Labour Party offered her $250,000 to enter into a secret, and potentially corrupt agreement to enter into a coalition with Labour, you say:
“Hmmm. Not too sure I’m very comfortable with the anonymous part of that transaction.”
Stop insulting people with stupid arguments defending the indefensible, Sonic.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
How many sonics does it take to grasp reality?
No one knows, its never been tried.
Keep talking sonic, you’re comments are pure gold for anyone who isn’t a labour toady.
Hey llew is this one of your team bud?
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
“National was selling policies to the highest bidder”
What is obvious IP is that National is a pro-business party.
It believes in things like low taxes and helping business, who in return help to fund the party.
It’s nothing unusual, you get the same model all over the world.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
The comment above by Sonic is a perfect example of why I don’t bother ‘debating’ with lefties. Lefties are only motivated by two things; jealousy, and the need to satisfy their own egos, to show the world what virtuous citizens they are. *yawn*
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:27 pm
There is only thing I live for Spirit Of 76, and that is those moments when you notice me….
Job done.
xxx
S
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
You rabid righties sound like the French soldiers in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, no arguments, just abuse. Quite funny really.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
Bugger.
Vote:September 28th, 2006 at 11:58 pm
On Radio Live today Willie Jackson said the person concerned was Maori and living in NZ. Hmmmmm!
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 12:21 am
Funny how some people in this thread criticise Turia for refusing to say who was involved. Where are those people when it comes to Mallard’s unsubstantiated comments about the Nats. Don’t remember him spilling any evidence.
This is a side show. Why not focus on the real vote buying – like the govt changing policies to give those on collective contracts more (for absolutely no reason other than they are on collectives) – thereby allowing unions to justify charging their members more and then amazingly the unions spend hundreds of thousands of dollars propping up the failing Labour regime.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Funny how some people in this thread criticise Turia for refusing to say who was involved. Where are those people when it comes to Mallard’s unsubstantiated comments about the Nats. Don’t remember him spilling any evidence.
This is a side show. Why not focus on the real vote buying – like the govt changing policies to give those on collective contracts more (for absolutely no reason other than they are on collectives) – thereby allowing unions to justify charging their members more and then amazingly the unions spend hundreds of thousands of dollars propping up the failing Labour regime.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 7:38 am
I can reveal it was a member of the Exclusive Sisterhood
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 8:03 am
Michael Andreoti wrote:
Sorry, but I don’t think these allegations are a ‘sideshow’ at all. As I’ve said above (and I think most people would agree), a very wealthy individual or organisation (be it corporates or trade unions) making a $250K donation to a political party (or parties) because they support its policy platform is one thing. Making a $250K donation, with the expectation that it will determine the votes of a caucus on any matter, let alone confidence & supply votes that are crucial to a government’s existence, is quite another. Corruption is the mildest word I can come up with, especially if it involves a person who not only is a major donor to one of the main parties, but has substantial business interest in this country.
Turia needs to name names, and do it sooner rather than later. Not only to protect her own credibility (which I don’t give a fig about), but because we should all be repulsed by someone who quite literally thinks our government can be brought and paid for.
Mrs. Turia needs to understand that this kind of person doesn’t deserve confidentiality. And I don’t know know how things work for Whananui Maori (or in Parliament), but where I come from solemn oaths made on The Bible mean something.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 8:08 am
“Funny how some people in this thread criticise Turia for refusing to say who was involved.”
Like Don Brash? His statement:
“For the good of the country he says the Maori Party must reveal the identity of the individual who made the advance.
“Light needs to be cast on this issue as soon as possible to preserve the integrity of, and confidence in, our democratic process.”
It’s not a sideshow. Not even a Labour-National spat. It’s a serious allegation, and it needs to be cleared up, for the greater good, not partisan politics.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 8:08 am
Another thought, Michael. I don’t think much of the Labour Party in general, or President Mike Williams in particular, but they don’t deserve to be smeared by association with these allegations. Nor does every expat billionaire who (IMO) was stupid enough to cut Williams a big fat cheque.
If Mrs. Turia named Deep Pockets, then he would not only be subject to rigourous public scrutiny but he’d also have the chance to put his side of the story if he chooses. That’s fair enough, isn’t it?
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 8:31 am
Danyl, rubbish is either still owned by the houseowner, or when put on the kerb owned by the council. I forget which but it can be stolen.
My paraphrasing of Turia’s interview with Woodham was done on memory but I am pretty confident she said organisation. I wonder if ZB will release it?
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 8:53 am
I don’t think this was illegal. However, it certainly was not okay. If we don’t defend our democracy from these kinds of attacks, we will lose it.
Of course we only have Tariana Turia’s side of the story. Perhaps the approach was “I like Labour, but I know in an MMP environment parties need allies. So, I’m just trying to determine, are you going to be an ally of Labour? If so, I would certainly like to support you”
That doesn’t sound nearly so bad. However, the problem is that a large figure was named. Saying “$250,000″ sounds too much like an attempt to apply undue influence rather than to enquire about alignment of policies.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 8:56 am
http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3811989a11,00.html
Interesting… May prove legal..
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 8:58 am
funny how everyone seems to think she is oh so innocent and naive. perhaps Turia got paid to shut the fuck up
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:05 am
“A spokesman said there was nothing to ban conditional donations under the Electoral Act”
Thought so.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:06 am
simon g wrote:
It’s not a sideshow. Not even a Labour-National spat. It’s a serious allegation, and it needs to be cleared up, for the greater good, not partisan politics.
Indeed. If the allegation was that a major donor to National had offered the Maori Party a tasty $50K donation – on the proviso that the Maori Party give a National-led Government critical confidence & supply votes, I’d want it cleared up one way or the other. I don’t think any political partisan likes even the implication that their party is associated with someone who who thinks the government of this country can be (quite literally) brought and paid for like a new Jag with all the optional extras.
Auckland Uni law Professor Bill Hodge was on Morning Report earlier, and he made the argument that Turia herself has made a prima facie case for a breech of S. 103 of the Crimes Act, that would justrify the Police having *ahem* a little chat with her.
That section is as follows (emphasis added by me):
103.Corruption and bribery of member of Parliament—
(1)Every member of Parliament is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years who corruptly accepts or obtains, or agrees or offers to accept or attempts to obtain, any bribe for himself or any other person in respect of any act done or omitted, or to be done or omitted, by him in his capacity as a member of Parliament.
(2)Every one is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [7 years] who corruptly gives or offers or agrees to give any bribe to any person with intent to influence any member of Parliament in respect of any act or omission by him in his capacity as a member of Parliament.
(3)No one shall be prosecuted for an offence against this section without the leave of a Judge of the [High Court]. Notice of the intention to apply for such leave shall be given to the person whom it is intended to prosecute, and he shall have an opportunity of being heard against the application.
END QUOTE
Now, if the allegations made by Mrs. Turia doesn’t constitute a prima facae case that Deep Pocket acted with the “intent to influence any member of Parliament in respect of any act or omission by him in his capacity as a member of Parliament” what the hell does?
Mrs. Turia should either go to the Police, and finally lay a complaint or make it clear she will fully co-operate with any investigation the Police choose to initiate. Until then, I have to agree with others that her credibility (and by implication that of her party) is on the line and shrinking.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:13 am
Sonic & JAUHUB:
Hum… Auckland law prof Bill Hodge seemed to have a different POV on Morning Report – and he’s certainly more disinterested and up on the law than any of the politicians named in the linked story. S. 103 of the Crimes Act is pretty clear, to my eyes, and I’d respectfully suggest to Steve Maharey that the Police and the Judiciary are a little more qualified to make a determination of whether it applies in this case than him. Just a thought…
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Craig, read the above it is not a crime. You seem to be having trouble with the word “bribe”
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:18 am
So it’s not illegal eh…
This is surprising but there is one good aspect to it.
AT LEAST IT’S NOT JUST LABOUR WHO ARE ABOVE THE LAW. IT’S NOW ALL POLITICAL PARTIES AND WE HAD BETTER GET USE TO IT. SEDITION CHARGES FOR ALL WHO DISAGREE.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:25 am
Mrs. Turia, that powder keg you are sitting on has certainly got our attention, and yes, that fuse you lit does sparkle beautifully.
Just one qestion.
Are you going to roll the keg over into the labour party area now, or just continue sitting on it?
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:29 am
Sonic:
You seem to be having some trouble with the function of the Electoral Commission. And I don’t think even Martin Kay would pretend an article under his byline has the same weight as a carefully considered determination by the Police or a High Court justice whether S. 103 of the Crimes Act applies. Professor Hodge – who, as I said, strikes me as better informed and more disinterested than anyone quoted in the article you’re waving around – thinks Turia herself has established at least a prime facae case worth closer examination.
You may think Turia’s allegation that someone approached her party who thinks the government of this country is (quite literally) up for sale is no big deal, just the way politics works. I disagree.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Craig – I did say “may prove legal”, and I missed Morning Report.
At the very least there should be a police investigation to establish if there is a case that the alleged offer does breach any of the Acts mentioned.
I have to say, that if it is decided to be entirely legal, then the law needs changing.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:46 am
This whole Maori party thing, while it absolutley stinks isn’t any more illegal, or dispicable than the NZBRT-Brash affair.
This is why all anon donations, say above $200 should be illegal.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 9:47 am
Craig, I’ve given you at least three examples of a way to phrase the offer that would fall foul of no law.
This dog won’t hunt mate, better try something else.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:56 am
Uh Oh – Hunting analogies.
The lamest of the lame on the interwebs.
Should Sonic go and buy more quikeze??????(6)
I say YES.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 10:59 am
Uh Oh – Hunting analogies.
The lamest of the lame on the interwebs.
Should Sonic go and buy more quikeze??????(6)
I say YES.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 11:00 am
In fact I say it twice
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
Cowboy
There is a world of difference in recommending/suggesting to an opposition party that a certain person would be better than an existing office holder than attempting to influence the make up of a future government. I have no problem with recommending but the more cash that is actually offered the freater the risk of influcence being exerted.
Vote:September 29th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
It looks like a bribe It smells like a bribe. It is a bribe. How thick and stupid are the deniers to pretend its something else.Are your eyes and ears painted on.Turia says the person was prepared to give the Party the money and in return the Party was asked to support the Socialists. Paint it up however you like but a bribe is a bribe is a bribe.
The ball is in her court She either puts up or she and the Maori Party will be a continuing laughing stock and the butt of endless jokes And it will be their fault if they bring it on themselves.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 12:51 am
Why would Turia go to the police?
Politically it’s unwise to.
Mr Farrar demands that there be no serious allegations without proof! On which planet is he?
Such hypocrisy from some of these guys: one standard for Turia but another for National’s Ms Collins et al with respect to the shameful Benson-Pope allegations (repugnant behaviour by Ms Collins).
Craig appeals to authority and screams: “prima facie case!” “Prima facie case!” as if that seals it! In fact, objections to this case may see it never get off the ground, or it may be shot down in full flight (likely), or we may allow that it strikes home but the defendants may escape its full force (more likely). Screaming ‘Prima facie case!’ is often as effective as crying wolf!
Get a real lawyer to explain what could happen.
But, honestly, get a real politician or astute political observer to explain to Craig et al what is actually going to happen.
I agree with gd: it’s up to Turia, and she’s a politician first.
Best,
James
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 2:21 am
James – it is not up to Turia. Anyone can go the police and lay a complaint.
The argument about the existence of a prima facie case is that this means there is something for the police to look into, not that they should necessarily do anything having looked into the matter.
Vote:September 30th, 2006 at 7:14 am
*aigh* Nice to see you’ve reached full bore hysterics early today, James. I do hope Mr. Edgler has calmed you down a bit, and I welcome your new reluctance to convict people on the basis of allegations. You intend to start extending Don Brash that courtesy in this lifetime?
Vote:October 1st, 2006 at 1:41 am
Graeme –
Correct about prima facie cases. I am also correct about what can follow. I disagree with you about the argument. The argument clearly focuses on Turia, not anyone. Further, the context is politics, where, I think, Turia will see it prudent to withdraw the allegations in some way, form, fashion. Anyone else is unlikely to come forward easily.
Craig-
My loyalties will be to the next leader of the NZ National Party – not to this boob, Brash.
Best,
James
On the Winning side of the NZ National Party.
Vote:October 1st, 2006 at 1:56 am
Graeme –
Correct about prima facie cases. I am also correct about what can follow. I disagree with you about the argument. The argument clearly focuses on Turia, not anyone. Further, the context is politics, where, I think, Turia will see it prudent to withdraw the allegations in some way, form, fashion. Anyone else is unlikely to come forward easily.
Craig-
My loyalties will be to the next leader of the NZ National Party – not to this boob, Brash.
Best,
James
On the Winning side of the NZ National Party.
Vote:October 1st, 2006 at 7:55 am
Craig, you said “[Labour] don’t deserve to be smeared by association with these allegations”.
I disagree. Labour have spent a ton of energy trying to tie National to the Exclusive Brethren. Now the shoe is on the other foot. If they want to claim that donations buy policy from the Nats, then I’ll be fucked if I let them get away with one of their supporters making conditional donations to the Maori Party.
Vote:October 1st, 2006 at 10:05 am
Blair:
Well, I don’t think we need to play Labour’s game by Labour’s rules – which is why I’m a firm advocate of the Police having a chat with Mrs. Turia and MP president Whatarangi Winiata. No matter how you spin it, Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge (who should be a ‘real’ enough lawyer to satisfy James) is right: Turia’s own statements constitute at least a prima facie case of a breech of S. 103 of the Crimes Act, 1961 that deserves further investigation.
If there’s someone out there who thinks our government can be customised, brought and paid for like a new Jag they need to be exposed and prosecuted. If Turia is (to be blunt) talking shit, she should be exposed and shamed as well.
What must not happen in a trial by innuendo. Even the Labour Party and Owen Glenn deserve better than that, especially when the allegations involve corruption of the worse kind.
Vote: