Raybon Kan on NZ First
December 17th, 2007 at 8:02 am by David FarrarRaybon 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.
Related posts:
- More on Starship donation returned
- Cheques
- Starship gives money back to NZ First
- Audrey has questions
December 17th, 2007 at 8:06 am
WInston will call this the demented ravings of some Asian, and we all know how much he likes Asians!!!
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:23 am
Shows the utter farce that Parliament has become. MPs exempt from NZ laws. Lower than the low.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 8:40 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 8:42 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 9:17 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 9:26 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 9:31 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
Not just morally due KevOB. Its called use-of-money-interest and the IRD charges it to everyone else.
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 9:33 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 9:42 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 10:09 am
$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:December 17th, 2007 at 10:12 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 10:23 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 10:34 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 10:51 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 10:54 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 10:58 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 11:03 am
GWW
Vote: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 ?
December 17th, 2007 at 11:28 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am
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:December 17th, 2007 at 11:55 am
If you’re going to threadjack GWW, perhaps you’d like to comment on those polls out last night?
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 12:03 pm
No comment on the polls then lol…
Vote:December 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
Come DPF tell us which charities benefited from national not paying the GST.
Vote:Its all above board isnt it, then we dont mind knowing
December 17th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 1:15 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 1:45 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
“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:December 17th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
Catwoman
Vote: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.
December 17th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 6:02 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
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:December 17th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Inventory2
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:December 18th, 2007 at 6:28 am
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:December 18th, 2007 at 9:37 am
“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: