Garner calls on Peters to resign
Yay at long last TV3 Political Editor Duncan Garner is blogging, and he says what he thinks on it:
To believe Winston requires you to believe the unbelievable.
Like;
When Winston Peters held up the big NO sign in February in response to questions about whether Glenn had donated money, Winston’s lawyer Brian Henry didn’t pick up the phone either before and after – and say arrrrhhhh, Winston, he flicked us 100k 18 months ago.
And remember this so called policy of Henry’s is not required by any outside force. It is in fact just a decision made between him and Peters that allegedly he would not tell Peters who donated. Now the reason you would do this is to protect Peters, but when it becomes clear that more damage is being done by not telling him, it is almost unthinkable he would not have told him earlier.
Peters credibility has been damaged. He’s turning defence into attack. It’s all he’s got left. Helen Clark’s silence is remarkable but not surprising. She needs him if her Government is to make it through to the election.
Remember when Phillip Field’s discretions were only “judgement issues” according to Helen Clark. Lets see what the judge says about those “judgement issues.”
Yes Clark has a fine track record here.
Auditor General Kevin Brady should investigate Peters. He’s nailed Labour before. He’s got the guts to nail Peters. The IRD should look at the tax status of the donation. The Privileges Committee should start its kangaroo court – at least it would provide some theatre.
Agreed.
Peters may have used up his nine lives. He voted to end secret and covert funding – yet took it on the side. Indeed, it was so secret, we’re meant to believe he didn’t even know.
He should resign. The saga is a disgrace. And on his way out he should apologise to the NZ Herald Political Editor Audrey Young who broke the story.
That is a big call, but a correct one. If after the revelation he had admitted the public has (as John Key puts it) been misled by him, then maybe it is survivable. But his outrageous continuing attacks on the NZ Herald for exposing his secret donation are the worse form of bully boy politics.
Imagine if the Exclusive Brethren loving Nats had denied getting 100k then coughed up under pressure.
Would Peters go easy on John Key? Would Helen Clark stay silent, muttering, “it’s a party matter”? You know the answer.
And imagine Phil Goff? I think his head would actually explode as he shouted himself hoarse on it!
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:06 am
OK – I’ve got a challenge for Garner and the rest of the Press Gallery. If you folks really believe Peters lied to you — and the rest of us — why not refuse to cover anything he’s involved it, stop giving column inches and air time to yet another ’smear and scare’ barrage from someone whose relationship to the truth isn’t particularly close?
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:07 am
You would think he would have checked this out with his lawyer BEFORE holding up that “No” sign which was so extravagantly displayed. And if afterwards it would have been routine for this lawyer to have told Peters the sign is not correct. And Peters could have cleared it up there and then. But no he only made the correction so time afterwards after accusing the media of all sorts of falsehoods. And even after that you would have thought a correction and apology would be in order. But no, he waited again and timed it when the news of his private bereavement became public. And he is still unrepentant, skips the country on some junket and is still criticising those who are merely seeking the truth.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:23 am
I like the momentum that is starting to build around this issue now – at the start of the week it didn’t feel like it had the legs. Is National ready for an election if the worst case scenario develops for Peters and Labour ? I hope so and the sooner the better for this country’s sake.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:38 am
Our politicians answer to Duncan Garner now?
I thought his job was to report.
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:54 am
Dedicated to the Labour Party and the Standard…
“You know” hissed Lector “I once had a little meat of Brash becasue he’s been recieiving cash and lying to me. I had him with some farver beans and a fine chardonnay.”
“fufufufuufufufuu” Clarkisse winced.
“So Clarkiss” hissed Winstable Lector. “Tell me your greatest fears, and I promise I will help you…”
Calrkisse knew she must surrender to this hypnotic presence. It was the only way she was going to get the numbers she needed to stay in power for just a little longer.
“It’s when I was on my farm.” she began. “As a child.”
“Good, Clarkisse.” said Lector, Were you ‘po white trash, Clarkisse? DIdi you want to take revenge on all those rich folk who so derided your manners, accent and clumsy social graces?”
Winstable Lector had hit a nerve, but Clarkisse couldn’t stop. She had to unload.
“It was at the end of the season. We rounded up all the little sheep into the big barn. They were ready for slaaughter. I could hear them crying, confused and frightened. They needed someone to lead them, into the light and show them a golden dawn. and the slaughterman was coming.”
“You wanted to do the right thing. What stopped you, Clarkisse?” said Winstable.
“I knew if I let them live, and let them out, and had to listen to them crying anymore, they might start to wake up the neighbours, and then people would come to see what all the fuss was about. It was horrible, but I simply had to make them shut up. So when the slaughterer came. I just told them to all be very quiet, like good little sheep and that everything would be alright.”
“And did it work?”
“Yes. They all did as they were told and went very quiet. Then the slaughterman went round and slit their little throats one by one, without a word of complaint.
Clarkisse buried her head in her hands. and sobbed; I can still remember it –
the silence of the sheep.
Lee – MWT
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
If Condoleezza has occasion to say NO to Winston, on anything, will he necessarily believe she means NO
July 22nd, 2008 at 11:57 am
Lee, more creativity in your little finger than…
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
> stop giving column inches and air time
But why slaughter the goose that keeps laying golden eggs? Peters is like manna from heaven.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:13 pm
> I thought his (Garner’s) job was to report.
Murray, I think you’ll find that under the BORA, Garner is entitled to freedom of expression. And his comments appear on a blog, you know, where opinions are usually found.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Given his attacks on Audrey Young and Th Herald what is he going to do to Phil Kitchen who he has already threatened to sue – `if you get anything wrong sunshine’ – or words to that effect.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Craig Ranapaia
Instead of not reporting Peters the Gallery should start every news conference with a series of questions
`When are you going to pay Parliamentary Services NZ First owes’.
`Who approached Glenn for $100,000.00′
`Who is lying you or your Solicitor Henry’
`When will you apologise to Audrey Young and The Herald’
`When are you going to resign as Foreign Affairs Minister’.
There are many others.
These can be asked by every reporter by rote until an acceptable answere is given.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I just heard our bottom-feeding Prime Monster comparing Winston’s electoral challenge to Wyatt Creech’s (don’t know what station it was)…how fucking low will this woman stoop?
There’s a wee difference, Clarky, and that is that there’s been no allegation that Creech took $100K from the Labour Party’s major financier!
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:15 pm
saw Brian henry on telly last night Jezzzzzzzzzz if ever there was a lawyer that confrimed the citizens worst perception of the profession then Brians the man.
He prattled on about taking a principled approach. Well poor old Brian and his ‘client” as he referred to Luigi dont understand the rpinciples of good governance
two of them are TRANSPERANCEY and DISCLOSURE Long gone are the days when the citizens could rely on Henrys way which is Trust Luigi and me We know what we are doing.
the 21st Century now demands that the pollies DISCLOSURE the source of any funds and we the citizens then decide whether or not those funds pruchased political and or financial favours.
So Brian and Luigi unless you want to be tarred as a pair of crooked little opos you tell us up front and then we will judge
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Ross my question is why does Garner get more play for him calling on Peters to resign than the other 4 million of us?
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:27 pm
The saddest thing is that after the whole Peters saga blew over, he might actually be back in parliament once again. You can already see that both Labor and Nats are not too willing to dig into Winston as they are afraid that they will need his “support” to form a government after the election. So the parasite remains.
It’s like… a person knows that he has cancer, but the cancer cells are attached to his heart, so removing the cancer cell could also mean ending his own life. Therefore he lets the cancer be and the cancer slowly grow bigger and bigger, eventually corrupting every other organ of said person.
MMP has to go IMO.
July 22nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Duncan Garner used the heavily airbrushed pic of Clarkula the other night when he did his poll report. When this campbellesque leftie starts sticking it in to labour they should be very worried.
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Just watching question-time. Is it just me or does it seem that NZ first are giving Winston’s Eulogy?
July 22nd, 2008 at 2:55 pm
I’m not going to stick up for Winston but surely the tax-status of Owen’s donation (as it affects Winston) is completely dependent on whether it is judged to be income or gift.
If it was a gift then there’s no tax liability on Winston’s part, however Owen will have gift-duty to pay on the amount since it exceeds the $26K any one person is allowed to “gift” in a year (although is lack of residency in NZ for tax purposes may negate that too).
So, either Owen or Winston *should* have paid tax on that money — it’s just a matter of who (if anyone) is liable in the eyes of the IRD.
Given that the donation was made a while back, it seems that if the tax hasn’t been paid (by the responsible party) then there’ll be a raft of interest and penalties that ought to be added to it.
Note: I’m not a tax expert but I’ve had far too much to do with the IRD not to know how they think (wink!).
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
>>When this campbellesque leftie starts sticking it in to labour they should be very worried.
I might start to gain some respect for this guy once he brings out the Bullshit Beeper every day for Labour and their poodles
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:13 pm
aardvark – fyi $27k is the gift limit for an individual.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Aardvark, I think there are some rules around offshore gifts. I know as I’ve tried to find a loophole there before for something I was doing, and it appeared to me that the tax on gift still needed to pay unless the gift was of property not located in NZ. I think I read somewhere that, if the gift is not tax paid on receipt, then the taxation liability passes to the recipient.
Of course, you could argue that the “donation” was actually a fee for services rendered – so despite the fact that such a fee is illegal, it is still taxable. Same as profits from selling drugs are taxable. I’d like to see the IRD decide to take that line!!
Anyway, at the end of all that, someone broke the law. And Winston’s fingerprints are all over it. I very much doubt he’ll get off scott free. I kind of hope he toughs it out to the election rather than retires. If he retires he gets a valedictory speech in parliament, everyone says nice things about him. If he gets turfed out in an election in a haze of corruption allegations, well, that kind of feels to me like about what he deserves. I know, a bit vindictive of me, but he has held the country to ransom a number of times and done a bunch of pretty offensive stuff. I’m not inclined to cut him some slack.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Jafapete’s latest post on this makes all this frothing in the right blogsphere look a little silly. Perhaps this place needs a name-change? I suggest “lynchblog”. Any takers?
http://jafapete.wordpress.com/2008/07/22/nope-the-axe-is-stayed/
[DPF: Well I have had oh well over half a dozen lawyers go out of their way to congratulate me on the analysis on this blog.]
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:58 pm
So, Jafapete’s attitude is ‘everyone does it, and John Key must be worse so move along… nothing to see.” Thanks, Nome. Also nice to see that anyone having the gall to criticise Saint Winston is tantamount to a pack of racist killers. Wipe the spittle off your chin on the way to the naughty step, and try not to be such a hack. Just once.
July 22nd, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I agree with you gd, watched Winnies “lawyer” the other night, the bloody man looked liked he was sitting on an ants nest. I note his favourite word was principles. principles my arse!. If himself and Winnie call that corrupt self serving shit they have dished up to the NZ public as principled then I’m a horse’s arse.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:16 pm
For some-one who can wipe most posters here with intellect and reasoned thinking, Craig, You do show yourself to by really silly sometimes….”and try not to be such a hack. Just once” Next you are going to apply for a job with Father Christmas?
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Heh… spasm of optimism which has been ruthlessly quashed. Sorry.
But seriously, I just don’t know how anyone can even try and defend the indefensible.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“So, Jafapete’s attitude is ‘everyone does it, and John Key must be worse so move along”
Nah – He recommends suspending the lynching until a case of wrong-doing has been proven. I thought that was obvious, although I’m not so surprised that the point was lost on you – being one of the shrillest Nat Party shills in the blogsphere.
Also, he’s right that the National Party risks looking hypocritical over this issue. They were by far the biggest recipient of secret, potentially corrupting money in 2005.
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:54 pm
Ranapia, “So, Jafapete’s attitude is ‘everyone does it, and John Key must be worse so move along… nothing to see.”
Well, thanks, but that’s not what I said at all. What I have said all along is that, you need to *prove* wrong-doing before you can start sacking people and the like. Helen Clark actually listed the various avenues for pursuing the matter in Parliamnet today.
Why has National not lodged any complaints anywhere then?
On National’s undoubtedly greater garnering of secret donations from wealthy and corporate interests I noted that, “… this will be lost on too many people, I fear.” You, of course, will probably say, “it was legal at the time, move on.”
Lastly, don’t know whether you saw Trotter’s recent Independent piece where he maintains that National had so much money at the last election that they planned a two-election strategy: barely winning in 2005 and then engineering a fresh election within a short time — not difficult if you have Peters in your government — and being the only party with the funds to fight it. Interesting?
[DPF: Trotter has made that up. It is a myth. And as for wrong doing - I would say demanding the resignation of journalists for exposing a secret $100K donation which benefited him is a clear case of unethical conduct.
And it is also bullshit about wrong doing must be proved in court or something before a sacking. Ask Dover about that. That is the excuse she used for Field when it was obviously clear he had acted unethically. The standard for Ministers should not be that they have not yet been sent to jail]
July 22nd, 2008 at 4:55 pm
side show bob My pick is that Henry and Peters use a go between the old nudge nudge wink wink both are lawyers so know that if one tells a 3rd party and vice versa then as long as they stick to the line its bloody hard to pin them down.
In this case the time frames have weakened the plausible denialibility for them.. The email from Glenn was the killer punch.
I suspect Glenn was behind the leaking of this to pay Peters back for stuffing up his little Monaco job.
I also suspect Glenn has something up his sleeve on Clark probably thru the Bagman Williams.
Will be watching to see if there are more emails leaked. I wonder whether Clark found out about Glenn being the number one shipping agent for BAT British American Tobacco and the other (cough) interesting cargo he moves around the globe and even she drew the line and pulled back.
If so then Glenn will be out to destroy them both and so the death by emails
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
“And it is also bullshit about wrong doing must be proved in court or something before a sacking. Ask Dover about that.”
Nah – the National Party were never honest about the trust money they received in 2005 -and that was at least 15 times the amount Winston received. The only difference is, Winston didn’t list his trust as a pecuniary interest – which may be little more than a technical detail as we don’t know that Glen would have benefited from the donation (the lawyer was instructed to keep donors’ identities to himself).
So on the face of it, Winston did stuff up, but in substance National’s potentially corrupt receiving of donations was on a much larger scale, so they have no moral high ground on this issue.
July 22nd, 2008 at 5:59 pm
ok, let me get this straight nome – Peters, a lawyer, career politician and Minister of Foreign Affairs might have made a mistake, but it’s only a technical one so all is well with the world? Don’t you think he, Peters, a lawyer, career politician and Minister of Foreign Affairs should maybe have a better grasp of the law than that? I do!
July 22nd, 2008 at 7:54 pm
“Don’t you think he, Peters, a lawyer, career politician and Minister of Foreign Affairs should maybe have a better grasp of the law than that?”
Perhaps you miss the point. The National Party used secret trusts to receive a lot of potentially corrupting money in 2005. How ever it was public knowledge that this trust was being used to benefit the National Party.
Winston’s case is essentially the same, except his secret trust wasn’t publicly listed as delivering financial benefits to him, and this probably breaches the standing orders of parliament. Both situations stink to high heaven for the same reasons, but Winston has made the mistake of getting his law wrong.
So, the faux outrage of National over this issue inevitably looks hypocritical.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Roger
While we are on about faux outrage, how is it that you (a staunch defender of the EFA) can defend the actions of dear leader and the actions of Mr Owen Glen given that we have found out this week that BIG MONEY purchased the 2005 election?
$100k to Winnie if he went with Labour, another $250k offered to the Maori party (who rightly turned it down) if they went with Labour, is it that the real reason behind the EFA was to stop anybody else doing what Labour and dear corrupt maggot leader has already done?
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Whereas, the moral high ground of “everyone does it, and National has to be even worse — move along, nothing to see” is the rock of ages. Really, Nome, when it comes to ‘faux outrage’ someone really needs to deal with their own Freudian projection. Still, nice to know that what Winston is alleged to have done is a mere technical whoopsie. Must write out my big fat ’subscription’ towards National’s campaign expenses – via John Key’s personal lawyer, who is as discreet as a high class call girl.
July 22nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm
gd, hope you are right mate it would be heaven on earth to see the whole sorry lot go down in a steaming pile of shit but I won’t hold my breath. These mongrels have more lives then a bloody cat and even if the shit sticks the top echelons of power in NZ have become powerful and corrupt and nothing but a huge shift in the way NZ society wants to be governed will see to the end of these scum.
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:21 pm
nome – it’s you who misses the point. This thread is not about what the National Party did in 2005. It’s about Winston Peters’s deception. You really are nothing but a troll aren’t you?!
July 22nd, 2008 at 9:58 pm
“This thread is not about what the National Party did in 2005.”
But I’m entitled to point out the hypocrisy and lack of moral authority of the National Party in this issue. Coming from you people, it’s all much a froth about nothing (you all defended National’s use of secret, corruption inviting trusts).
Anyhow, I’m more interested in hearing why Farrar hasn’t done many more posts extolling the virtues of National’s latest proposal, aimed at taking a way the basic human rights of New Zealand’s most vulnerable workers.
Well Mr Farrar, how say you?
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I agree with Duncan Garner on this issue. Winston Peters should resign. It won’t happen though as Winston has no honour, just like the Labour party he supports.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Nome, there is a difference between doing something within the law, and being up front about it. And doing something that appears to be illegal, and lying about it. As always, if you can’t see the difference, that explains a lot about your politics.
July 22nd, 2008 at 10:25 pm
roger you really blow your credibility by such obvious dissembling.
Thread after thread after thread.
How about applying your considerable intellect to the issue under discussion?
Using the political maxim of not answering the question that’s asked but rather posing the question you want to discuss is a tactic that works well for morons and the terminally naive, but I would have thought you’d have picked up by now that this blog is inhabited by-and-large by rather more enquiring minds who become bored with such tiresome games.
July 23rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
BTW, Nome, you do actually support the Register of Pecuniary Interests and don’t believe ignorance is an excuse for not filing accurate statements on that register? Don’t you?