Jones vs Peters

This latest issue is coming down to a of Peters vs Jones. Now whenever two people are giving contradictory statements that can not be reconciled, I look at motivations. If one of them is lying, then why?

I just cannot see a logical reason for Sir Robert to not be telling the truth. What does he have to gain? Plus his version of events has been backed up by Professor Malcom Wright, his former General Manager, who now lives in Australia. Sir Robert says he had donated up to $250,000 to Winston///Brian Henry Legal Fund over the years. This doesn't seem like the actions of someone who would try to destroy Winston's career by lying about said .

The Dominion Post has revealed that Ross Meurant collected cheques from the for Winston/NZ First/Spencer Trust/Brian Henry Legal Fund and Sir Robert (plus other sources) have confirmed Roger McClay also collected money for Winston/NZ First/Spencer Trust/Brian Henry Legal Fund.

Now both these were close friends of Winston's, but more to the point were employed in his parliamentary office. The rules over what you can do as a parliamentary staffer are open to some interpretation – but there can be no doubt you should not be going around meeting potential donors and picking up cheques off them. Maybe someone will argue they did this in their spare time. But the significance is they worked for Winston personally – not the party. The Party President and Party Deputy Leader both say they have never heard of The Spencer Trust. Are we to believe that staff in Winston's private office somehow magically found out about it, from someone other than Winston, and on their own initiative decided to go around soliciting money for it?

Comments (19)

Login to comment or vote

Add a Comment