Raybon Kan on NZ First

December 17th, 2007 at 8:02 am by David Farrar

Raybon Kan has fun with the NZ First donation:

So New Zealand First has made a donation of $158,000 to Starship hospital. By coincidence, $158,000 is the precise amount of taxpayers’ money the auditor-general said New Zealand First spent illegally in the last election. Does this mean New Zealand First is off the hook?

It’s an interesting tactic if it works. If you’re done for fraud, can you just write a cheque to a charity and have it all go away? If you get a tax bill can you pay the exact amount to Starship? If you get a jail sentence can you sentence yourself to Starship? Why not take the money to one ward in Starship and get the kids to fight for it?

Every political party should try the same stunt. Take money from Parliamentary Services and write large cheques to whomever they want. Don’t call it misappropriation of public funds. Don’t call it embezzlement. Call it generosity.

But it’s easy to be generous with other people’s money. This is why politicians love stadiums that will be used once. It’s not their money.

Every MP should follow Winston’s lead. Then we’d see MMP in real action. Instead of having a government policy, or some legitimate reason to spend the money, each party should simply write cheques according to their own whim, and charge them to Parliamentary Services. Let the charities campaign for the misappropriated funds. Roll up! Roll up! Get your Parliamentary Services slush money here! It’s disturbing that a former treasurer thinks this is OK. Wouldn’t he be the first one up with a winebox full of documents if somebody else did this?

Shouldn’t he have some clue about the distinction between New Zealand’s money and New Zealand First’s money? Did nobody write him a memo on the subject? It’s an excusable mistake I suppose. New Zealand is such a similar name to New Zealand First. There’s only one word different. Of course, you’d get the cheque accounts confused.Then again, maybe that’s why he chose the name.

If Winston does not pick up the public mood on this one, he will be fighting a losing battle next year.  Instead of getting to debate NZ First’s policy achievements (1,000 extra police etc) they will be debating the $158,000 time after time.  If he donates it to another charity (if one can be found) the issue will not go away.

Tags:

41 Responses to “Raybon Kan on NZ First”

  1. Right of way is Way of Right (1,129 comments) says:

    WInston will call this the demented ravings of some Asian, and we all know how much he likes Asians!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    Shows the utter farce that Parliament has become. MPs exempt from NZ laws. Lower than the low.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    agreed Frank.

    Parliament and this govt has become a farce when it comes to the rule of law and long established conventions developed over centuries.

    and Peters is simply on some strange planet. I cannot wait for his fall – I will laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Rocket Boy (163 comments) says:

    DPF didn’t you say just a couple of days ago:

    ‘Assuming this is not a tax dodge (ie someone donating on their behalf who can claim a tax deduction) I can’t say I have huge issues with that – hell it just shows that not even NZ First trust Michael Cullen to spend their money wisely!’

    Mr Flip meet Mr Flop.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Yvette (2,688 comments) says:

    Herald on Sunday
    WINSTON SLAMS ‘ELITISTS’
    5:00AM Sunday December 16, 2007

    “Charities are lining up to take New Zealand First’s money, says leader Winston Peters, in the wake of Starship Foundation’s rejection of its “donation”.
    . . . The NZ First board was considering its next move and its decision was to be announced at 2pm today.”

    Herald [today]
    NZ First set to allocate returned Starship donation
    7:35AM Monday December 17, 2007

    Party sources expect a decision on who will benefit, or whether the money may actually end up with Parliamentary Services, will be made at tonight’s board meeting.
    - Newstalk ZB

    No, wait . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. KevOB (265 comments) says:

    What about the interest on this money, that is morally due to the Public Account too. It seem that WFirst are going to use it to fund their activities.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. cubit9f (356 comments) says:

    Winston can make a donation to anyone he likes (if anyone will accept his hot dirty money).

    Despite making a donation he and his party still owe $158,000 to the public purse.

    Which part of “Pay it Back” does he not understand.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. vto (1,128 comments) says:

    Not just morally due KevOB. Its called use-of-money-interest and the IRD charges it to everyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Inventory2 (10,095 comments) says:

    What self-respecting charity will want to be associated with Winston and his filthy luchre? Starship has taken the moral high ground, and I would be very surprised if another charity with enough mana to get Winston the kind of feel-good exposure that he had hoped for will accept his donation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Yvette (2,688 comments) says:

    1] If, Winston, the Government coffers are so useless and inefficient that you dare not pay the $158,000 back into them, why do you prop up the Government which is responsible for the faults you claim.

    2] Isn’t $158.000 less then half the price of the average house in, say, Upper Hutt. Why does NZ First, supposedly so fit to govern and play such a vital part in the House, take so long to get their shit together?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. kehua (225 comments) says:

    $158,000 deposit on Winstons retirement, probably good value as it ensures the demise of Woolerton,Stewart and co. What`s the bet Bob Kerridge or SPCA are the next `marks` [like that one] and they are stupid enough to accept the dirty money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ah..!..dpf..

    you have flipped where you previously flopped..

    it wasn’t that long ago you greeted peters’acrtions with little cries of delight/approval..

    did h.q. send you a memo/have a quiet word in your ear….?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Farrar (1,853 comments) says:

    You really need to read the comments in the previous thread. I am quite happy to say that I am now just opportunistically joining in the Winston bashing – it’s just too much fun to leave alone.

    The dynamics have changed also with Starship refusing it. If they had kep tthe money the issue may have died by Christmas. If he gives it to another charity now, the issue will live on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. slightlyrighty (2,496 comments) says:

    So Winston and NZ first screws up with public money, refuses to pay same back, engages in publicity stunt with said money which spectacularly backfires, and now wishes to do the same thing all over again.

    John Key and National release a DVD with potential copyright issues, and recalls them.

    Judging by the recent polling results, you can never underestimate the power of a contrite and timely “Mea Culpa”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Swampash (114 comments) says:

    See, that’s why Winnie won’t do it. “Mea Culpa” is a Latin phrase understood only by chardonnay-drinking, pinky-finger-lifting linguistic elitists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    Still no news on which charity the national party used to get around the money it had to pay back after the last election.

    Dont expect DPF to bother finding out either

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PaulL (5,872 comments) says:

    GWW: If you care, why don’t you find out. Alternatively, why don’t you fuck off so that we don’t need to put up with your thread jacking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Yvette (2,688 comments) says:

    GWW
    Now would really be the time for Labour to dump National in it if what you claim is true and, given Labour and NZ First’s deftness in acquiring National e-mails and other internal information, can one assume from their silence your assertions are all bullshit ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    yes Yvette its all true, the NZ Herald said at the time quoting Judy Kirk
    National has since refused to pay the bill, which would breach the law by pushing it over its election spending cap, and has failed to win support for a private member’s bill that would allow it to pay the debt without being prosecuted.

    Yesterday National president Judy Kirk said it did not want to “profit from the honest mistake”, so National was offering to pay the amount owed to buy television and radio time for charities

    Pay the money to a charity,, how sneaky is that and how dare Winston steal another National idea

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    As for FedL.. what thread hi jacking
    Rayborn said this..
    It’s an interesting tactic if it works. If you’re done for fraud, can you just write a cheque to a charity and have it all go away?

    national writes a cheque to make its stealing of the GST for TV advertising “go away”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. TJCO (59 comments) says:

    If you’re going to threadjack GWW, perhaps you’d like to comment on those polls out last night?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    Am I the only one who reads what kan says, of course DPFs sock puppets all mouth in unison but the text shown on the post clearly says ANY use of a charity to get around not paying back the money is indefensible.
    Im just reminding them that national got in first

    [DPF: Actually the only opinion that matters is the person to whom the money is morally owed. The broadcasters were happy with the arrangement as they got their money, without them also ending up breaking the Broadcasting Act]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. TJCO (59 comments) says:

    No comment on the polls then lol…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    Full marks to the Starship Board for having the ethical and moral standards to realise accepting the ‘donation” would have been bad governance. And what a change in this country that is a seething mass of bad governance at all levels and in all sectors.

    From central government down we do have a dirty contemptible attitude to good governance and sadly some commentators on this and other blogs demonstrate their appalling ignorance of good governance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. david (2,535 comments) says:

    No GWW but you may be the only one setting up strawmen.

    I presume you don’t need reminding that National were the ones who notified the EC of the GST error, immediately offered to repay, tried to get the payment legitimised without incurring liability under the broadcasting Act, were refused (at the same time that Labour were instructing Crown Law to prepare retrospective legislation validating their own blatant misappropriation of public funds) leave to introduce legislation.

    But then you may need reminding as you seem to have a rather large blind spot in your vision of the recent past.

    How hypocritical does Labour have to get to incur your attempts at cutting criticism?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    TJCO Dont talk about the polls Remeber the usual excuses.

    The only poll that matters is on election day

    The Nats have risen in the polls by saying nothing (heard that on efrom Crazy Clark on radio this morning)

    Its an aberation noty reflective of the long run trends.

    Or Molesworth and Featherston running poll of polls that always behind the 8 ball

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    Come DPF tell us which charities benefited from national not paying the GST.
    Its all above board isnt it, then we dont mind knowing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Insolent Prick (417 comments) says:

    GWW:

    Go ask the broadcasters concerned. National has nothing to do with decisions that broadcasters make to allocate advertising time to charities. DPF doesn’t know which charities received that advertising, and nor does the National Party.

    But since you’re into asking stupid questions, GWW, then try answering one for a change. How do you feel about Helen Clark relying on Winston Peters for her political legitimacy?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Frank. (607 comments) says:

    You have to lay this on going sags fiasco, squarely at the door of the Office of the Police Commissioner.

    This was as a result of the failure to investigate an allegation of Misappropriation of Parliamentary Services Funds and compounding the felony by burying the complaint.

    Justice was well and truly perverted, prevented and defeated allowing our Statute Books to be permeated by the stench of corruption, first with the Validation Act and soon to be added is the stench of the EFA, a lasting memorial to our corrupt Government

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

    GWW, why don’t yopu find out for yourself? Are you an intellectual moron or just a muppet? Do some work yourself if you are that interested. Just ring up the broadcasters and, if they don’t give you satisfaction, come back to us and tell us all about it.

    Until then, either put up or shut up.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. side show bob (3,660 comments) says:

    So according to Sulllen and the Liarbore party NZfst are now considered stinking rich pricks, two out of three isn’t bad I quess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. catwoman (123 comments) says:

    “Foot Found on Beach in Christchurch”. Solved. Would Winston please claim his lost property that the NZ First Executive wrenched out of his mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. bwakile (757 comments) says:

    Catwoman
    Winnie will have to get in line as I think that Peter “know all about the EFB” Dunne will be putting a claim in as well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. ghostwhowalks (389 comments) says:

    Insolent prick says..
    “National has nothing to do with decisions that broadcasters make to allocate advertising time to charities. DPF doesn’t know which charities received that advertising, and nor does the National Party.”

    But last year the NZ herald said..
    …National president Judy Kirk said it did not want to “profit from the honest mistake”, so National was offering to pay the amount owed to buy television and radio time for charities

    It cant be a donation to a charity if you give to a company .
    You must give it to a charity for it to be a donation.

    national knows exactly who the charities are and if the lazy journos could write their own stories they would push them to tell.
    Just walk up to John key and ask him, and if he refuses to answer the question say youll print his denial

    [DPF: Your one man jihad is getting nowhere. National gave the money to the broadcasters and said use it tp buy $112,500 of ads for charities. No law got broken that way and the broadcasters were happy (as they could not legally accept the money any other way)]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Fost (100 comments) says:

    GWW: How about you take your own advice: “Just walk up to John key and ask him, and if he refuses to answer the question say youll print his denial”

    Hey you’re the one that REALLY WANTS TO KNOW, so why don’t you just piss off and find out – or are you just another lazy prick sitting on a benefit for so long you’ve forgotten what your brain is for.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. GNZ (228 comments) says:

    there will always be some charity with a slack enough trustee (or whatever) that they would take money from anyone. Winston just needs to check first that they are willing to take his dirty money too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Inventory2 (10,095 comments) says:

    Hey, here’s a thought…..why doesn’t Winston bail out a finance company – wouldn’t saving the moneylenders get him some good press? Or is it the case that even bankrupt money men won’t touch Winston’s poisoned chalice with a bargepole?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Grant McKenna (1,156 comments) says:

    I think that I know a solution to the Minister Without Baubles’ problems. Donate to the Grant McKenna support fund…

    now, how do I register a charity?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. burt (7,797 comments) says:

    Inventory2

    Hey, here’s a thought…..why doesn’t Winston bail out a finance company…

    I though he was a finance company, he’s borrowed somebody else’s money, made earnings off it while he’s had it.

    Imagine the benefit that Starship would have provided by now from $185,000 donated in 2005….

    This is the situation, he stole it, used it to earn interest and then tried to defend his actions by involving a charity. He’s still not paid back the money he owes the tax payers, he voted to validate himself and in little Winston brain he’s bulletproof… The voters will speak!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Flashman (184 comments) says:

    This is one of those classic too-clever-for-its-shirt wizard PR wheezes that obviously only arise from the slab at 3am in The Green Parrot when the level in the Glenfiddich bottle has dropped more than halfway down the lable.

    But it’s reality as a stupid stupid stupid brainfart is never considered through the banging hangover later that day.

    What do you say Cadmus?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. KevOB (265 comments) says:

    “Still no news on which charity the national party used to get around the money it had to pay back after the last election.”

    At least they didn’t knowingly steal it my misappropriating what they knew they were not entitled to. Curious that National were able to tell right from wrong. But they are on the right of truth anyway.

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

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.