The tax on the $100,000

July 22nd, 2008 at 4:24 pm by David Farrar

The media have started to look at the issues around the secret $100,000 donation. It is indeed quite probable that there is an unresolved issue around it.

A tax lawyer has helpfully made the following points to me:

  • Normally gifts are not considered to be income but it can extend to include “gifts” given for extra services or additional benefits beyond expectation.
  • If gave the $100,000 as a mark of satisfaction with Winston’s past services as an MP or in the expectation of some future benefit to be bestowed, then the money would constitute income.
  • It is irrelevant that the money was paid to and not to Winston personally. The Income Tax Act is very clear that, as it was Winston’s legal bill that was being paid, it would be his income.
  • Bank and lawyers’ trust account records are not protected by legal privilege. The Tax Administration Act expressly states can have access to all financial records. There is no “privilege” in payments, only in legal advice.
  • Even if the secret donation is not treated as income for Winston, and is a “genuine gift” then the Estate and Gift Duties Act applies.
  • A gift of $100,000 would attract gift duty of $12,850.
  • When a gift is made, the Act requires the person making the gift to pay the duty within three months.
  • If the giver does not do so, the liability automatically passes to the recipient who must then pay the gift duty.
  • A failure to do so constitutes a criminal offence under the Tax Administration Act.
  • Interest and penalties on any gift duty not paid on time would have more than doubled the original $12.850 owing.

Now assuming it is seen as a gift and not income for services provided, it is possible Owen Glenn paid the gift duty. If he did not then it sounds unlikely it has been paid, as Henry and Peters keep arguing it is not a gift. That means the liability would still be resting with Peters.

Tags: , , , , ,

62 Responses to “The tax on the $100,000”

  1. gd (2,286 comments) says:

    And pray tell DPF What is the period for taxation purposes as regards the alledged income if adjudged by the Revenue as such.

    And has the time past for the due filing of a return covering the said income.

    And if so is the taxpayer now in default as regards the Revenue.

    And what are the penalties as regards such an offence.

    And are these penalities such that they render the taxpayer as ineligible to hold the office of a Minister of the Crown.

    And finally Given the alledged offences have been commited by a person who is ‘close to the Prime Minister does this simply mean that all will be swept under the carpet as in the past and the citizens treated with the usual arrogance and contempt by the parties involved.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. david (2,483 comments) says:

    However;
    If the funds are sourced offshore then I think your tax expert might find that gift duty does not apply in which case you are left hanging on the argument of the definition of income and whether there is a legitimate argument that it is not a reward for services either past or future. But then I’m not a tax expert!

    Just in case tho’, it is possible that Cullen is (as we speak) drafting some legitimising legislation a la Duynhoven’s citizenship and the pledge card rort. Might as well go for the Trifecta!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Parliament was interesting on this issue today and it is the longest running question I can remember being asked in the House. In another thread on this topic, someone, I cannot remember who framed the law from the position of a Trust account. I don’t believe how the money was paid to whomsoever has yet been fully disclosed – so the circumstances from the public perspective is still very much in the air and thriving alone on allegation after allegation. The Prime Minister had no problem supporting Mr Peters from the information at hand and quite clearly stated that if there is a problem for Mr Peters then Nick Smith is going to get slammed with three times that same problem.

    For those, and I can sense there are many, who want to see Mr Peters politically damaged at the end of this, beating the issue up is simply fuelling the crow he may well be able to give at the end. The risk that is being taken by those fuelling this fire is that the reverse of the purpose of impugning him will come true and he will be lauded as a hero. He’s impressing me at least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nigel Kearney (747 comments) says:

    I haven’t looked it up but I believe if the person giving the gift is not resident in NZ for tax purposes then there may not be gift duty payable (similar to what David said above). Someone should check what the exact rule is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. getstaffed (9,188 comments) says:

    One doesn’t need to be religious to see the truth in the scripture Be sure your sins will find you out. Winnie could have benefited from more rote learning of that back in 1950s Sunday school, instead of pulling some girls pigtails and chewing gum

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. alex Masterley (1,439 comments) says:

    If a gift in the hands of a NZ domiciled recipient relates to property(in it’s widest sense) in NZ then it is liable for gift duty. If the gift relates to property not within NZ then it is not liable for gift duty.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    Given that those that usually “throw stones’ tend to live in “glass houses” i look forward to the day that secret National Party funding is bought out into the open and the public get to descide how honest are National Party politicians.
    Personal Emails do not seem to be personal anymore so what makes anyone think sensitive National Party emails aren’t just hanging around waiting to be shown the light of day.
    I understand that the Dominion has also made further allegations today from “SECRET” email against Winnie which further reinforces my suggestiion that it is only a matter of time before National dirty (make that secret) email see the light of day.
    The New Zealand public are generally a fair bunch and i would suggest this continued attempted smearing old “Winnie the Pooh” could very well backfire, get NZ First over the 5%, weaken National’s vote and ultimately see them lose again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Mike Collins (170 comments) says:

    From the IRD IR195 guide: http://www.ird.govt.nz/resources/file/eb9f4047984e8ec/ir195.pdf

    “gifts of property situated outside New Zealand, where the donor is domiciled in New Zealand or is a body corporate incorporated in New Zealand.”

    I guess one could ask the question – did Glenn personally donate or did he use a body corporate incorporated in New Zealand for the donation? Many donations to political parties would not be from a personal chequebook per se, but from a body corporate. Worth asking. Don’t expect an answer from Winston though.

    Mind you the mere fact that these questions are swirling is a positive thing.

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

    Under section 63 (1) of the Estate and Gift Duties act it states:

    Dutiable gift(1) Subject to this Act, a dutiable gift shall include and consist of—

    (a) All the property, wherever situated, comprised in any gift made by any donor to any donee, where the donor is domiciled in New Zealand at the date of the gift, or is a body corporate incorporated in New Zealand:

    (b) All the property, situated in New Zealand, comprised in any gift made by any donor to any donee, where the donor is domiciled out of New Zealand at the date of the gift, or is a body corporate incorporated out of New Zealand.

    Section 63 (2)(d) also refers to debts:

    A debt owing by a corporation, whether incorporated in New Zealand or elsewhere, is treated as property situated in New Zealand if the debt was incurred or is payable in New Zealand and the corporation has an office or place of business in New Zealand, and in other cases is treated as being property situated outside New Zealand:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    David … off topic I know and if you think this warrants demerits then sobeit.

    But I simply have had a gutsfull of Winston and I think it’s time for National to make it plain we will not have a bar of him no matter what the election outcome. For too long I have heard the mantra that MMP forces parties to do deals with parties they don’t like and policies they don’t agree with and I can accept that to a degree … but there are bottom lines. But I think the latest revelations put paid to any deal as far as a Winston led NZ First is concerned. Simply he is a toxic and destructive populist of the Le Pen variety.

    National should not have a bar of him and we should state that publically..

    What then are the possible ramifications of such a move?

    Upside. If National makes it clear they won’t do deals with a Winston led NZ First then we are effectively forcing NZF to allign itself with Labour when there is a clear mood for change in the electorate. People voting NZF will do so in the knowledge they are voting for a Labour Government. This should burn-off fringe NZF support to our advantage and help ensure they neither reach the 5% or win Tauranga.

    Downside. Despite this NZF gets back into Parliament. National could be left having to cobble together an administration with ACT/UF/Maori Party support in whatever form it takes.

    I can live with the downside in preference to having to deal with a Winston led NZF.

    I am more than happy to take a lead on this in the form of a ‘open Letter’ to John Key and the caucus. I any Party members here would like to associate themselves with this letter then e-mail me at shepleycroft@xtra.co.nz with your name and electorate. If you are not a National Party member then please don’t bother to respond. This is an initiative for and on behalf of Party members only.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. insider (990 comments) says:

    I wonder if this could be the point of principle that WP will use to resign in umbrage railing at corrupt media that were always against him and political insiders etc, in an attempt to galvanise those disaffected with politics and so get over 5%.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. glubbster (345 comments) says:

    Its typical that nutters like John Dalley and Political Busker come out with such drivel. Ignoring Winstongate or pointing the finger at others does not warrant a response, just like PilU and muddyNome’s posts should be ignored or mocked.

    Isn’t this Brian Henry a Barrister, meaning he does not run a trust account (like solicitors do). So was the $100K paid into Winston’s personal account or NZF’s account and then paid to Henry??

    If BH is not a solicitor, it is still unusual that a donation like this would have gone straight into his trust account…

    Either way, the argument that the funds were not for Winnie’s personal purposes as it is a Court case is absurd. Winston Raymond Peters is the Petitioner in the case Peters v Clarkson – the petition is in his name. Henry would have expected payment more or less up front given that it was a very chunky case so I doubt he was paid by a donation well after the time.

    And solicitors hold the money on account for their client either Winnie or NZF they are the client and its for their purpose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Ross Miller: John Key has made it clear – or so was quoted by the Prime Minister in the house today, with hoots of joy on flip flops from Labour that National are very happy to deal with New Zealand First and Winston Peters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    Why all the threads, topics posts , Mr Farrar we are pissing into the strong Wellington wind , The HON Winston Peters could be running a BROTHEL in his department and UNCLE helen davis wouldnt give a rats fart ,Mr Farrar in davis eyes its called survival, and a hope other than having him killed,that MR KEY ratings will drop,Winston could have a P LAB brewing and it wouldnt be noticed , so the snake oil peters party slithers on.This thing peters stated that all parties will aproach him for the nod to take power,What was the kings name who told the knights to shut up the bishop, given the sword on the alter of power OPPS the greedy elderlyLOVE HIM, through thick or thin , he gave them the gold card :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. radvad (620 comments) says:

    “But I simply have had a gutsfull of Winston and I think it’s time for National to make it plain we will not have a bar of him no matter what the election outcome”

    They should have said that in 1996. Bolger gave the nats a poisoned chalice when he went into coalition with Winnie and they did not recover until at least 2005. Winnie had campaigned on the basis of not doing a deal with National and Bolger should have kept him to his word.
    More fool him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. MM (5 comments) says:

    Just because Owen Glenn is not tax resident in NZ doesn’t mean he isn’t domiciled here. It’s much harder to lose your domicile than it is to lose your residence. For example if he’s born here and still a citizen, he’s probably still domiciled here. Same with all the UK based tax exiles. Their tax residence is the UK, but their domicile is NZ (which is what gives them tax breaks in the UK).

    Winston may be liable for the gift duty if Glenn doesn’t pay, but when he becomes liable he also has a statutory indemnity against Glenn for that amount. I think on Winston’s part he may be morally and politically culpable, and culpable in terms of not declaring a pecuniary interest, but making him liable for the gift duty is designed as a collection measure to get it off the donor, not because the principal liability lies with him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. boomtownprat (281 comments) says:

    MM, Owen (funder of the Labour Party, saviour of Winston Peters, purchaser of gongs and policy, importer of cigarettes and advocate of nuclear power) Glenn, was not born here. He lived here briefly 40 years ago. Labour modified their own law on electoral “transparency” to continue to allow him to donate large sums of money to Labour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. natural party of govt (461 comments) says:

    Presumably IRD will apply the same guidelines they applied to David Lange in his long running defamation case or Nick Smith.
    Neither of whom, I am sure, personally pick up the tab for the legal fees.

    As an electoral petition regarding the outcome of seat of Tauranga can legitimately be regarded as a work expense I dare say it is 100% tax deductible.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. JSF2008 (422 comments) says:

    Common everyone lets buy NEW ZEALAND ,going cheap, 50 x$9995 gives you privlages , helen clark will sell it to you to survive ,WHAT the north island is cheap , the south is cheaper , WHATS THE PARTY DONATION YOU ARE WILLING TO SECRETLY GIVE TO HAVE POWER IN (MY,ALWAYS MY )COUNTRY mr glenn $1000000 this time (what, you want us to invade monaco and give it to you) mr glenn No problem

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    Well Sainsbury just now made a predictably pathetic attempt to tie him down, failing to ask Peters even the most elementary questions or to keep him even vaguely on topic. And with all this ammo too.

    What a surprise. Sainbury is a total waste of space: he’s not worth 35k, let alone what they’re paying him.

    Of course Peters breaks into a huge smile when he’s told the interview is over. The only opportunity to get Peters to fess up and they give it to that loser. Wish Hoskings was there full time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Ross Miller (1,624 comments) says:

    Political Busker … re your 5.34. That statement was made some time ago and before the latest revelations. It guess it reflected the political reality that is MMP. What I am saying now is enough is enough.

    I may be expedient for Labour to retain him right now. That is their problem and they will answer for it. National has an option to cut him adrft and that is what I want to see happen.

    Thanks to all for the many e-mails of support. Keep them coming.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. big bruv (12,386 comments) says:

    Well said Ross Miller, I am disgusted at the way John Key is handling this issue, I posted comments very similar to yours yesterday that suggested it is time for Key to tell the Nation that under no circumstances will he consider a coalition with Peters and if that means another three years on the opposition benches then so be it.

    I was planning to give my constituency vote to the Nat’s and my party vote to Act, given the pathetic way Key has handled this whole affair I think I will now be giving both ticks to the Act party, I do not want the party that I vote for to have ANYTHING to do with that lying sack of shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. davidp (3,329 comments) says:

    I thought that Peters didn’t legally have to pay tax. Doesn’t the EFA contain a clause allowing Peters to give secret donations to charities in lieu of taxes?

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

    What pisses me off the most is the MP’s for NZfirst vote on tax laws that effect all of us but they then seem to go out of their way to circumvent these very same laws. Some of NZfirsts dealings may well be legal but what sort of message does it send to the peasants who suffer under the yoke of the IRD.

    Reid, Winnie said to Sainsbury that when he comes back to NZ there is going to be trouble. If I was Owen Glenn I would be heading for the hills, prehaps some more court action afoot, he had that suing look in his eyes. I wonder who the lucky bastard will be who will enjoy the thrill of funding Winnies court action this time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Yvette (2,591 comments) says:

    What is more disappointing to see than Winston acting the way he is? Yep – John Key saying he won’t rule out a coalition with Winston. He is being as effing pathetic as Helen, although her present need is obviously more desperate. She needs Winston, Key doesn’t for God sake!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    - 20
    I am so amused i got under some many of your skins, truth hurts a bit does it?
    So who else thinks that National are holding back? scared that if a closer look is taken at their finances what might come out.

    and

    what’s with Rodney and his yellow coat, makes the supersilius prick look like a bald lemon.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Buggerlugs (1,609 comments) says:

    no dulley, you’re just a dick that attracts -ve karma naturally like dogs attract fleas

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. xenophon (25 comments) says:

    Dalley, your logic is as faulty as your spelling. A vote for Winston First is a vote for Labour. They are both funded by the same shady ex-pat. They don’t own up until the chips are down, and Mike Williams is the back room strategist for both parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    “what’s with Rodney and his yellow coat”

    It’s called branding John.

    Are you a bit slow or something?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Brian Smaller (3,915 comments) says:

    ““what’s with Rodney and his yellow coat”

    It’s called branding John.

    Are you a bit slow or something?”

    Yes reid; Yes he is. He hit -22 which is about as far as you can go with -ve karma. Typical of his ilk though. The Klark government could declare martial law and people like him would say it was in the best interest of the people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    SSB, I said a week or so ago that one of the most interesting questions to me was who released those emails and I posed at that time the possibility of OG. It remains to me one of the most interesting questions and added to it is now the interesting question of who was the source of the Dom Post story this morning.

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    Notwithstanding, I don’t really see that OG is the one in the firing line. As it says in Proverbs 17:8

    “A bribe is like a precious stone in the eyes of the one who gives it; wherever he turns, he prospers”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    Buggerlugs. ooooh i’m so hurt that a dickhead like you is insulting me.

    xenophobe.
    Same shady expat, i’m sure Glenn is so privilged to have you as a friend.
    Why don’t we have a look at a bit of National party donations for 2007.
    Morrison Kent on behalf of an undisclosed doner $30.000.00 yes that’s $30M.
    So who are they hiding ?
    what potential payback might be wanted ?
    What has national potentially given in exchange.

    As you won’t get my point, i will make it again. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
    Simple enough for you ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. mara (641 comments) says:

    I watched the Q and A in the House today, and apart from Helen looking as though her piles were bleeding, it was very quiet. The calm before the storm, I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    branding ? Rodders is going to need it the man is a chump. All the space National has left ACT on the Far Right and he still hovers around oblivion.
    The boys a tosser who is about to bury his party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    Off topic alert: As a side issue I’m currently listening to Question Time and was struck by the extreme courtesy paid by Madam Speaker to a Maori Party questioner by entertaining a request from him no less than four times, to ask that she request Horomia to actually address the question he originally asked. Usually she just immediately says the Minister addressed the question, whether they did or not, and moves on, which happened several other times in the same session.

    The contrast between that consideration and every single other questioner was stark.

    Worst speaker, ever.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    John, I was living in Epsom last election and I knew Rodders was going to win, despite the media doing its ignorant best to predict otherwise.

    He understands politics, he’s smart, and so are the people in Epsom.

    If Douglas stood in Remuera, he’d win there, too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Sector 7g (229 comments) says:

    John Dalley

    Do you support secret donors by any chance?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. mickysavage (786 comments) says:

    Sorry DP but legal privilege does apply. The contents of Brian Henry’s trust account ledger should not be disclosed without authority and it appears that Winston did not know. All that the Income Tax Act does is provide an exception to the rule that the information should be kept privileged.

    The payment may be a gift. Now that it is in the open Winston should disclose it to the keepers of the parliamentary records concerning MPs and Ministers assets and liabilities. But if he did not know then how could he be obliged to disclose?

    Interesting attack, obviously designed to restrict funding. It is possible that Labour’s $500k and NZF’s $100k will not be repeated. In the interests of fairness what about National’s $2m? And perhaps Nick Smith should authorise the release of information concerning his legal difficulties and who paid for it…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    Mickey if you owed a $100 grand (to a lawyer no less) and then suddenly you didn’t, how would you not be curious as to why?

    And didn’t Nick declare it in his return?

    I thought the issue was not that he received it, but that he didn’t declare it.

    There’s a “man on the Clapham Omnibus” principle here, surely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “prick look like a bald lemon.”

    you mean there is perhaps a lemon with hair ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    This sordid episode is a shining metaphor for all the crime and what is wrong in NZ. Everybody from the top down, bobbing and weaving. Sick. Fucking sick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. davidp (3,329 comments) says:

    John Dalley > Morrison Kent on behalf of an undisclosed doner $30.000.00 yes that’s $30M.

    Errr… no it isn’t, it’s only one thousandth of $30 million.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    “Sick. Fucking sick.”

    Absolutely agree Paul. What will be interesting is that Winny’s support base, the elderly, are the very people who hold fast to the values of a bygone era.

    I wonder how long they’ll hang around if Winny really does get nailed on this one, and to whom they’ll turn?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,787 comments) says:

    That’s how they got Al Capone in the end, tax.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    Jeez… if only they could remember the ‘values’ of a bygone era, Mr.reid?? (Then again,..perhaps they could have taken a leaf outta Peter’s book??) And whats that they say about “power corrupts, and power corrupts absolutely…..??”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. mara (641 comments) says:

    Reid, Mr Horomia is so clueless, and near death, that the Speaker could be forgiven for her “confusion” with regard to him.
    I would not be sure what to do with him either. Maybe a bit of time out and stomach surgery would be good. He is probably a decent chap, and I don’t want to see him keel over in the House.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Paul Marsden (935 comments) says:

    If you ask me..they’re both ‘near death’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    “Jeez… if only they could remember the ‘values’ of a bygone era

    One thing that’s always interested me Paul, is what Rob passed on to Winnie, in order to get segments of that demographic to become so fanatic in their support for him.

    Of course some of the elderly withdraw from reality due to biological impairment but the majority don’t suffer from that and remain mentally as alert and astute as you and I. One presumes at that age you have more experience to draw on and therefore see more clearly. Naturally factors such as security become more important.

    Notwithstanding all of these elements, Winnie’s base can’t seem to bring themselves to believe the man’s a charleton. I wish I knew why because that is the key to that demographic and they will always be with us.

    P.S. my first name is Reid, I just never capitalise it since I can’t be arsed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Colonel Masters (420 comments) says:

    I note that he managed to shoehorn his mother’s funeral right into the beginning of the Sainsbury interview. He (Peters) truly has no shame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Colonel Masters (420 comments) says:

    Winston says: “Oh, excuse me Mark, I’m being tried in the public by you without any facts, any substance, any law to back you up. That’s what you’re doing. But I know why you’re doing it, because, I have a live action against you in defamation, and you’re doing your best to try and win it in the public court, not in the court in front of the law and the jury of this country.”

    What’s he talking about here? Is he suing Sainsbury personally or TVNZ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    Patrick Starr: Damned right there is. That being said, John Dalley really needs to return to the primary school he dropped out of and kick his maths teacher square in the gonads.

    Colonel Masters: Winston is suing TVNZ but as a result they’ve received some very useful information on monetary matters from an anonymous source. Winston may well be regretting he ever opened that particular can of worms.

    reid: Quite simply, the policies Winston espouses are not being offered by anyone else in the political market place and they matter to that demographic. A forceful espousal of those policies by a credible centre party (i.e. not Peter Prostitute and the NoFuture party) would shake that support loose. Not to mention that those policies have a place in politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. reid (15,603 comments) says:

    “Not to mention that those policies have a place in politics.”

    Quite right Rex, and thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. John Dalley (394 comments) says:

    Rex. You are a little cry baby, how’s aussie going for you?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Rex Widerstrom (5,129 comments) says:

    Just fine thank you John. Business is booming. I’m certainly not crying over anything… I probably would be were you to be doing my accounts, however. It’d be a terrible disappointment to be told I had earned $30 million only to find I had just $30,000 in the bank.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,787 comments) says:

    Winston sure did open a can of whoop ass over the Owen Glen donation.

    It’s Peter’s arse on the line and he doesn’t want a cock up. ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Sector 7g (229 comments) says:

    John Dalley

    Do you support secret donations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Side Show Bob – I believe the tax laws are the most complex part of every parliament – if you would agree and take an exception to such a societal condition in self health, what would be the primary instrument you would exercise to mitigate the necessity of complexity invasive on the individual, corporate or other body?

    Reid – That exchange in Maori Language week was the most extraordinary exchange I’ve seen in this House yet. Parekura knew the rules and as you pointed out the Speaker stuffed up – although she concededed that point with a later explanation which was particularly weak. I thought the real issue is noone knew what was being said and this disarmed everyone, (I only know a little te reo and had to rely on the interpretations which is frustrating as: What Parekura did was quite proper, he answered the first question by ‘addressing the question’ and then went into a mode of Superwaffle – which is what pisses everyone off – because he does it directly and deliberately all the time – (that’s a very big frame he has to protect). What he usually does is build up to a pitch and then unleash all excess on how National simply cannot compare with anything Labour in regards of respect of Maori (Jim Bolger?) – and when you get into the deeper issues of what might be being said on this topic For Facts, a reasonable perspective may be inclined to agree. But your absolutely right MW got caught out – and if you heard the customary high pitch wailing scream later to bring order where she feels she is struggling you would have heard how deep the wound of that particular frustration bleeds. So I disagree Mara it wasn’t a quite question time at all. I’ve never heard her scream so loud before.

    Rex Widerstrom: I agree with your observation about New Zealand First and the policies of possible future. ALthough I think the point you make about middle ground has nothing similar (very frustrating where Peter Dunne’s co party member is the most succesfully outspoken on fatherhood issues) with anything by United Future. Peter Dunne is as globalised a politician as we have probably ever had (or ever will) and in my book that’s pretty out there on the political right. I see NZF politics as an attempt to construct a bridge between the colonial model that adapts for the indigenous model that weakens. At the moment I am not convinced that the investment is honest and this is why there is so much animosity to how Winston works. He demonstrates frequently that he is trying to protect his policies using a sparking the tarseal means of communication. Hardly worth trusting such a practice if everytime you move in a concessionary way you get bodyslammed to a pile from which Winston can ever climb ever higher.

    Surely he’s allowed to say his mum died and State that put pressure on him – with respect Colonel who’s shoehorning as the rugged task-master; Sir?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Like a drowning man grasping at straws, unintelligible, one eyed and pathetic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Which eye?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. David Baigent (172 comments) says:

    Brown eye, looks backwards..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    David Baigent :-) Then; looking back and keeping this consistent with modern politics, my original question then becomes:

    Witch ai or wai?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Political Busker (231 comments) says:

    Richard Prebble has set the ground for the proper answers to be answered in the public interest on the funding of politicians. Winston Peters has already answered to the point RP makes on responsibilities on Cabinet members, interestingly stipulating that the structure of the responsibility on Cabinet members gave him his immunity from acting out of law. This is where Kathryn Ryan fell over not being able to get past the point that RP seems now to have researched, backing up Rodney Hide.

    I’ll use this to open my own elections campaign given that funding in support of politicians is now under the heaviest radar possible. No one needs to know if you support the Political Busker. No law demands that I should know who will support me as I challenge injustices in New Zealand. I’m placing my virtual hat on the blog.

    Donations to my internet account will be completely anonymous. Just pop some coins into the virtual busker’s hat and you will keep me writing in Wellington.

    The [INTERNET] bank account is for: http://www.iplaynz.com/Home IPLAY Wellington Ltd: ASB.The account number is: 123 192 001 5170. My account name is NUGGET so you will need to write that into the deposit.

    Respectfully,

    Benjamin Easton
    (of a) father’s coalition.

    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.