Kiwiblog

Listen to John Key on Nine to Noon. Key rules Peters out even if cleared by the SFO and Privileges Committee because he says his credibility is still too damaged. It is not just about criminal behaviour but ethical standards.

David Cohen has a 20 point test on whether you are a journalist or a blogger. I got 13/20 which makes me a “mid-grade hack”

Frog Blog asks if Helen Clark may be regretting choosing go go with Winston instead of the Greens?

Idiot/Savant blogs on Day Two of the MMP Symposium. The panel session was interesting (in my rather conflicted opinion) and if things slow down I might try and do an extended post on it.

Bryce Edwards has an excellent piece of research on the funding of NZ First. It is not a scandal breaking story, but some detailed academic research, well referenced. We need more like this.

Chris Trotter blogs thus:

It has been made uglier, however, by the way in which this particular dog-fight is being stage-managed. Taking advantage of your opponent’s gaffes, and seizing your chance to drive a wedge into fragile intra-party alliances, is one thing. A carefully orchestrated campaign of character assassination – the political equivalent of a gang-rape - in which members of the news media have become as deeply implicated in the planning, timing and execution of each assault as the polticians themselves, is something else altogether.

I’ll leave it to the feminist blogs to get upset about comparing newspaper stories to a gang-rape. I’ll just focus on the substance of this gang-rape analogy:

• Phil Kitchin is a political gang rapist for revealing the existence of a secret trust that takes money for NZ First but does not disclose it
• Audrey Young is a political gang rapist for revealing that Owen Glenn did donate $100,000 to Winston Peters
• Bill English is a political gang rapist for getting the PM to reveal she had known about Glenn’s donation for six months and said nothing

Do I need to go on?

And what did Chris Trotter call it, when Helen Clark “gang raped” Jenny Shipley in 1999 over a trivial dinner with Kevin Roberts?

Just been e-mailed a story from the Bay of Plenty Times. It is not online. They did a “snapshot survey” of 100 voters in Tauranga. Now 100 gives a 10% or so margin of error and it isn’t strictly scientific as it is of people who happened to be out on the streets. But as the results are so extreme, it is not without some news value. On the electorate vote, the responses were:

1. Simon Bridges (Nat) 53%
2. Undecided 18%
3. Anne Pankhurst (Lab) 16%
4. Winston Peters (NZF) 12%
5. Larry Baldock (Kiwi) 1%

And this was done before Owen Glenn revealed Winston Peters solicited the donation from him!

I did not think it was possible to score third behind Anne Pankhurst, who is quite reviled in Tauranga due to her local body career. But he has done it.

And can the Kiwi Party stalwarts now shut up about how Larry may take the seat as a dark horse candidate.

Russell Brown attempted the impossible today – a defence of the PM. To be fair to Russell, he did praise Phil Kitchin and Audrey Young for bringing this all too light, but he offers an explanation for why Clark did nothing:

Perhaps we should deal with that first. Why on earth would Helen Clark have decided not to implicitly trust Owen Glenn when he told her that? One reason is simpler than you might think: Glenn had recently given interviews in which his recollection of the timing and purpose of his donations to her own party was demonstrably off the planet.

Shortly before Glenn told Clark that he had made a donation directly to New Zealand First, he gave an interview to the Dominion Post’s Kim Ruscoe in which he said he had donated his $500,000 to Labour’s 2005 campaign because he was concerned about the “sneaky” influence of the Exclusive Brethren on the election.

This simply could not have been true: the Brethren flap blew up only weeks before polling day 2005. Glenn’s donation was made — and properly declared — in two chunks in 2003 and 2004. It was all cheerily reported in the Herald in June 2005 — four months before anyone outside the Brethren and some people in the National Party knew that the Brethren was involved in the campaign at all.

And yet here he was, in February 2008, giving an account that seemed to have sprung entirely from his imagination. In the same interview, Glenn also made the unlikely claim that Clark had seriously suggested he could be her Minister of Transport if he would but return to New Zealand. Glenn subsequently admitted he’d been big-noting to a lady reporter.

So if you’d been wondering — as Messrs Farrar and Hooton have been doing very loudly — how Clark could possibly have doubted the recollection of a prominent party donor over the word of her foreign minister, that’s it. Glenn, successful businessman and excellent philanthropist that he is, had been demonstrating that he was not necessarily a reliable witness. Clark did, we now know, take the matter seriously enough to place an urgent call to Peters in South Africa. But we can perhaps understand her reluctance to pull the pin by calling her minister a liar.

I was going to do a detailed response to this but Matthew Hooton has done it for me in the comments.

I have wondered no such thing. What I wonder about is why, when Clark was told by Peters that he received no such money, she didn’t go back to Glenn (or get someone else to) and say, “Hey, Owen, Winston says you didn’t give him money. What’s the story here?’

And when Peters held up his “No” sign and said someone was fabricating emails and that Audrey Young was making up stories and should resign, along with her editor, Clark (or one of her staff) never went and said: “Ah, Winston, this is getting a bit hot. Are you sure that he never gave you money?”

Again, when the matter came up again in July, it seems incredible Clark (or her staff) didn’t say: “Come on Winston, what’s the story here, because Owen is adament he did give you money.”

And, Russell, your claim that Glenn was not necessarily a reliable witness should surely be balanced by the fact that the Foreign Minister is hardly a reliable witness either. Remember the Russian submarines he reckoned were operating off Great Barrier Island in the 1980s? Or the ferry that scraped its bottom in Tory Channel. Or that Selwyn Cushing tried to bribe him? Or that the SFO and the IRD were involved in a criminal conspiracy to cover up the winebox issue? Or that he would never serve in a Cabinet with Birch and Shipley?

When it comes to reliable witnesses, it is not obvious to me why you would back one over the other perhaps, but to back Peters over Glenn after a single phone call, and then stay silent for six months while Peters was making such strong attacks on people like Audrey Young seems to me to be an extreme case of “see no evil”. Helen Clark is hardly someone who does not gossip and exchange information very widely.

Also, I have noticed an extraordinary trend by so-called liberals to almost go on the defence for Peters. As usual, the people at thestandard.org.nz are the worst offenders, but I understand from one genuine liberal who attended Drinking Liberally this week that there was alarming levels of support for one of the most reactionary, illiberal and racist MPs we have seen in recent times, and one who has done tremendous harm to the integrity of our political system (and continues to do so this very day).

When are Labour-leaning people going to say no to Peters in the way many National-leaning people, particularly those of us on the socially liberal wing of the party, did some years ago?

I would add on an extra point to what Matthew said.

There is a world of difference between someone being wrong on minor details like dates, exact conversations etc and being wrong on whether or not you wrote out a cheque for $100,000. It defies credibility that Helen Clark could have had a good faith belief that Owen Glenn would not know he had written out a cheque for $100,000. Exactly who it went to he may be unsure on – but not the fact it was made, and who solicited it.

As Matthew says, all Helen had to do was make one extra phone call.

UPDATE: Another key point is this was not a situation where one had to try and work out who was telling the truth, because the truth was a matter of provable fact – was a donation made, and to whom? If Peters and Glenn were disagreeing over who said what at the races, then the PM could well be in the position of not being able to resolve it. But this was a disagreement over a factual event – a donation. Facts are easy to establish – again it would have taken on more phone call. The simple truth is Clark knew Glenn was telling the truth, but did not want to have it proven. She was happy for her Foreign Minister to keep telling lies for six months, when she could have established the facts in a phone call.

First listen to Bob Jones here.

Jones explicitly says Peters has lied to Parliament, as he is not happy with the information he has received to date.

Then listen to Winston Peters here.

Peters reveals he has been speaking to Bob Jones to reassure him about his donation to the Spencer Trust, and that it has been properly accounted for. But if Winston knows nothing about the Spencer Trust, how can he give that reassurance?

He went onto to say he had made inquires and is satisfied the money conclusively demonstrably ended up in NZ First.

If so, then why was no donation from either Bob Jones or the Spencer Trust declared in NZ First’s annual donation return to the Electoral Commission?

The entire interview is pathetic with Peters grasping for straws. He could give no credible answer to the question as to why he was not concerned that Owen Glenn was telling the PM of a donation he claimed to know nothing about. Any sane person would have contacted Owen Glenn and asked him why does he has this belief?

We also know that Peters and Glenn had talked after Feb 2008. Are we expected to beleive that having had the Prime Minister of NZ tell you that Owen Glenn thinks he donated $100,000 to you, Winston Peters would not have raised the issue with Owen Glenn when they were talking on other issues?

The NZ Herald has a helpful photo gallery of all of Clark’s misbehaving Ministers. With yesterday’s revelations they should add her to the list. The short version is:

1. Dover Samuels – sexual misconduct allegations
2. Ruth Dyson – drunk driving
3. Phillida Bunkle – claiming a Wellington housing allowance despite living in Wellington
4. Marian Hobbs – claiming a Wellington housing allowance despite living in Wellington
5. Lianne Dalziel – lying
6. John Tamihere – accepting golden handshake from his trust
7. David Benson-Pope – lying
8. Taito Phillip Field – charged with bribery and other corruption
9. David Parker – apparent false Companies Office returns
10. Trevor Mallard – assault
11. Winston Peters – investigated by SFO for serious or complex fraud

It might be shorter to do the list of those who have not been in trouble!

The Herald has a copy in full of the SFO statement. I am interested at the exact wording:

“I have sufficient information that gives me reason to suspect that an investigation may reveal serious and complex fraud.”

Interesting he said serious and complex, not serious or complex.

“I want to emphasise that it is entirely possible that there are innocent and honest explanations. The use of the statutory power to require documents to be provided will enable the SFO to ascertain how funds were applied,” Mr Liddell said.

This is very important. I have never stated thet Peters or his cronies have broken the law. Quite simply not enough information is known to be able to make any such conclusion. But this decision means that the SFO will be able to gather the information they need to decide.

“I have decided on the information currently available that I do not have a basis for using statutory powers to inquire into allegations that Mr Glenn’s donation was misapplied or that there was an attempt corruptly to influence the Primary Production Select Committee that inquired into allegations of corruption in the Ministry of Fisheries in relation to scampi quota in 2003.

This means that the threshold to launch a full investigation is not just allegations, but that they have been substantiated in some way.

It is possible that the investigation I have authorised might be broadened at some later time and these other matters inquired into as a result of whatever information comes to light in the course of the investigation about to commence,” Mr Liddell said.

Might be broadened. A fascinating concept.

In the case of the allegations concerning the scampi select committee, the allegations are serious, but serious of allegation alone is not enough. There needs to be information availabel to support the requisite suspicion, and there is not, at this point.”

It would be tragic if the SFO, while looking through the NZ First bank accounts, for the Vela donations, also found some other donations – ones which had been denied as existing.

On information currently to hand, there are serious questions whether donations intended for one purpose may have been put to a different purpose. The allegations concern important matters relating to the funding of a political party, which go to the heart of the democratic process, and involve a minister in the Government. They also relate to the actions of laywers, who as officers of the court have fundamental obligations to uphold the law.”

Lawyers upholding the law. A wonderful concept.

“This investigation will be accorded priority. It is not possible to say how long it will take. Should the scope of the inquiry be substantially broadened, I will make a public statement. I will make a further public statement at the conclusion of the inquiry.”

We await any further public statements.

Winston Peters has made it clear on Radio NZ he will not step down, so Clark has to decide today whether to sack him or not. It she does, it sounds like NZ First will regard it as a breach of their confidence and supply agreement and withdraw confidence.

Some people think that just because no formal confidence vote is scheduled, the Prime Minister can remain in office without having the confidence of the House. This is not so. No Right Turn has a good post on this issue. You need to have the confidence of the House, even without a formal vote scheduled. Jenny Shipley in 1998 was able to show she did, after also sacking Peters.

If the PM sacks Peters, she should ask for a confidence vote on Tuesday.

If she does not, the Opposition could write to the Governor-General and point out that the Prime Minister now only has 54 votes for confidence (incl Copeland and Field) and 57 votes against confidence plus 10 abstaining. The GG could then ask the PM to demonstrate she has the confidence of the House.

If NZ First abstain on supply and confidence, rather than vote against, the Government would survive 54 – 50. So the key question is Clark sacks Peters is will she call a confidence vote (only Monarchs govern without consent) and how will NZ First vote on that confidence vote?

My latest Dispatch from Helengrad is online at the National Business Review. It is of course dominated by the NZ First scandals and do they spell the end of Helengrad. My scores for the week are:

• Best Play of the Week – John Key gets an A+ for ruling out Peters as a Minister
• Worst Play of the Week – Helen Clark scrapes an E for not revealing she knew the truth until now
• Scandal of the Week – the SFO investigation into NZ First merits an A+
• EFA Breach of the Week – I examine carefully the Electoral Finance Act to see just how much trouble the EMA might be in for their A+ breach
• Patsy of the Week – Mark Burton gets a D for his efforts
• Blog Analysis of the Week – Toad gets a B+ for his post on G Blog for why the Greens should not back the ETS Bill

I do not normally hand out so many A+ ratings but it has been an extraordinary week.

Comments and feedback welcome over on NBR.

Another Phil Kitchin story in the Dom Post:

Remember this exchange in May:

Mr Peters answered questions in Parliament on May 10, 2006, about Winebox legal fees.

National MP Tau Henare, a former NZ First MP and caucus colleague of Mr Peters, asked the NZ First leader: “Who paid the legal fees for the Winebox?”

Mr Peters replied: “Who paid for the Winebox inquiry? Yours truly … I would never have thought Tau Henare would have the temerity to raise that question. Shame on the member. I had to carry the whole can by myself.”

Sounds very clear. Peters carried the whole can by himself. Except …

However, four bills obtained by The Dominion Post, all dated June 2, 1995, and from Mr Henry to former NZ First staff member Terry Heffernan, suggest Mr Peters appears to have misled Parliament. The bills total nearly $24,000 and were coded as being paid by Parliamentary Service.

Misleading Parliament is very serious. That should send him to the Privileges Committee. Oh wait, he is already there!

But who else may have been economical with their answers?

Mr Henry told the committee last week that he eventually received legal aid for his Winebox legal advice under an arrangement with the solicitor-general.

But till he received that legal aid, Mr Henry said his fees were either paid by Mr Peters or through fundraising he did himself.

Whoops.

The gallery seem united in their view that Helen Clark will suspend or stand down Winston Peters today. She would be silly not to. In fact the SFO investigation has been fortunate timing for her – it lessened some of the focus on her personal lnowledge of the Owen Glenn donation.

Paula Oliver in the Herald says:

The Serious Fraud Office probe into New Zealand First’s finances announced late yesterday makes Winston Peters’ suspension as a minister unavoidable.

Claire Trevett reports that most of the party leaders are calling for Peters to be stood down.

John Armstrong writes:

Facing mounting pressure to deal with Peters to stop his multiplying crises tainting Labour by association, Helen Clark now has the perfect excuse to stand him down from his ministerial portfolios without his having any valid reason to complain.

Tracy Watkins in the Dom Post:

Phone calls between the Clark and Peters camps late yesterday ahead of a meeting today point to mounting pressure on Miss Clark to stand her foreign affairs minister down.

NZ First insiders insisted yesterday there was no prospect of him standing aside voluntarily.

Colin Espiner in the Press:

His position appears virtually untenable after the SFO yesterday started an investigation into claims that donations allegedly solicited by Peters from Sir Robert Jones and Vela family interests did not reach New Zealand First.

I expect it will be announced before midday.

The Serious Fraud Office has confirmed they are launching a formal investigation of New Zealand First.

This does not imply guilt, but does mean there are serious allegations to be investigated.

National has failed in its application to judicially review the Electoral Commission’s decision to allow the EPMU to register as a third party. The decision is here – kirk-v-electoral-commission-anor-jmt-260808-jud_jtk_717.

The key clause is below:

The assessment of the effects of the membership and other rights which the Union has under the Labour Party Rules, and the making of a judgment as to whether these rights are such as to constitute involvement in the administration of the affairs of the party, are matters for the Commission. The Commission has clearly taken into account that the Union has the voting and nomination rights of a member.

The decision does not contain a detailed analysis of the rights. That is not required. There is no basis in the decision for a submission that the Commission has proceeded on a mistaken view as to the nature and extent of the rights under the Rules. This is not a case where the Commission has failed to take this relevant matter into account. It is not for the Court to substitute its view, based on its own assessment of the Rules. The question on this application for judicial review is not whether the Court would have reached the same conclusion. Rather, it is whether the Commission has reached a conclusion which is so clearly untenable as to amount to an error of law. The plaintiff has failed to meet that high hurdle, on this aspect of the case.

As Justice MacKenzie says the hurdle is high, and this does not mean the Court agrees with the Commission, just that the Commission appeared to consider all relevant issues. It is interesting that because the Electoral Commission did not give many details of the rationale for its decision, that makes it harder to argue they should be reviewed.

While I initiated the letter to the Electoral Commission, I am not the decision maker on the court cases, so don’t know if this is the end of the issue, or if National will appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Personally I am more interested now in the possible prosecution of the EMA Northern. You see reliable sources have told me that the total cost of their advertising campaign against the KiwiSaver law changes was in excess of $120,000. If this is so, then they would face prosecution for not an illegal practice, but a corrupt practice. The EMA Chief Executive could be jailed for up to three two years if found guilty. Yes, seriously.

Clark has damned herself with her revelation today. But she has halped damn Peters also.

Now only a moron would believe Peters insistance he knew nothing of the $100,000 donation until Brian Henry told him in July. But let us pretend for a second we are all morons and Peters did not solicit the money from Glenn, and did not thank him for it.

Helen Clark has said she told WInston in February, that Owen Glenn told her he had donated. Now even if one beleives Peters knew nothing up until then, as of February he conculsively knew Owen Glenn was so insistent he had donated her had told the Prime Minister of NZ he had.

Now after being told that, he went on to do his infamous No press conference, despite knowing that Glenn thought he had donated.

And after the Herald published the e-mail from Owen Glenn, he accussed the NZ Herald fo fabricating it, despite the fact he absolutely knew Owen Glenn did think he had donated.

This kills Peters credibility, if he had any left to kill. He says the first he knew of it was when Brian Henry told him. This is untrue. Even if you do not believe he solicited the donation, Helen Clark has said she told him about Glenn’s belief in it some months earlier.

Just as bad, is that Helen Clark sad there throughout the No press conference and the attacks on the NZ Herald saying nothing, despite having been told by Owen Glenn. She even said nothing when Winston Peters sain in July this was the first he knew of the donation – something she knew was false, as she had told him about it.

This is the even bigger smoking gun. Helen Clark has known since February that Owen Glenn donated to Winston Peters. NZPA reports:

Wellington, Aug 28 NZPA – Prime Minister Helen Clark has said Owen Glenn told her earlier this year that he had given $100,000 to New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, but Mr Peters had told her the expatriate billionaire was wrong.

Miss Clark told reporters that Mr Glenn had told her about the donation at a meeting in February.

Miss Clark said that when she had run this by Mr Peters, he had told her that Mr Glenn was mistaken.

These conversations all took place before Mr Peters held a press conference at which he strenuously denied receiving any money from Mr Glenn.

She should resign in disgrace. All this time she has sat there knowing the truth, and has allowed Peters to continue this charade. This must be the end of her.

UPDATE: Clark is defending herself by saying she asked Peters and had to take his word. What crap. Look at when Benson-Pope lied – she asked the media to supply tapes or transcripts to her office so they could work out if he lied.

I knew Clark was unethical but I never quite realised quite how unethical she is. This is really disgusting. She sat there while Winston Peters defamed Audrey Young and said nothing. She knew that e-mail from Owen Glenn was not fake, and said nothing. She thinks her only responsibility to the public of NZ is to ask Winston, and accept without question anything he says. That is not leadership. That is not integrity. That is a sad desperate attempt to remain in power, no matter what.

This cartoon from the Southland Times sums it up.

The General Debate yesterday saw the most extraordinary “Operation Protect Winston” from Labour and WInston himself. It took 90 minutes for Rodney Hide to make a five minute speech as senior Labour Ministers and Winston did everything they could to stop Rodney from revealing further damning claims of corruption, including alleged lies to a select committee.

Considering how often Winston Peters and Trevor Mallard have made wild accusations under parliamentary privilege, it was galling to see them both work towards stopping Rodney Hide quoting someone who was willing to state their views on camera to TVNZ.

The Dom Post reports Auckland University law professor Bill Hodge expressing concern over how the Government is trying to block Hide from revealing accusations of corruption.

On a related note, it was telling last night when the audience at Back Benches were asked to indicate if they beleive Winston Peters was telling the truth regarding Owen Glenn. Not a single person in the audience indicated they thought Peters was telling the truth.

The Government should be demanding the SFO investigate the allegations or be setting up a Commission of Inquiry into them – not trying to shut MPs down.

Tumeke’s slush fund diagram is going to have to become a billboard at this rate. Phil Kitchin at the Dom Post reveals the “National Campaign Account” for NZ First and how in 2003 there was a $10,000 cash donation made anonymously.

Cash donations of that magnitude are almost unheard of I would say. So the known funding sources now are:

1. To the Spencer Trust
2. To Brian Henry for legal bills
3. To NZ First directly, breaking large donations into a series of small ones
4. To the Winston Peters Fighting Fund
5. To the National Campaign Account, as cash

There are also allegations of some highly unusual practices involving cheques which are never cashed. The list may grow further yet!

National has ruled out having Winston Peters in Government (unless he can somehow disprove Owen Glenn’s letter that Peters did know of Glenn’s donation), saying he fails the integrity test.

The Greens position themselves as a party of integrity.

So my question for the Greens, is this?

Will you rule out supporting on confidence and supply a Government which has Winston Peters as a Minister, after the election?

National has shown the balls to put a line in the sand. Will the Greens do likewise?

Pleased to hear Brian Connell has gained a job. He is quitting Parliament on 31 August to take it up. This is the right thing to do, unlike Steve Maharey who has been dividing his time between being an MP and being the Vice-Chancellor of Massey University.

The Herald is right that no by-election is necessary, as it is within six months of the general election. However that is not automatic – under s131 of the Electoral Act, Parliament has to resolve not to have a writ issued for the by-election by at least a 75% majority. This will happen of course – maybe even today.

The NZ Herald calls on Peters to resign:

Whom to believe? Faced with one person’s uncorroborated word against another’s, there are some tests we might reasonably apply. First, could one of them be honestly mistaken? Mr Glenn’s letter to the committee has been made public at his request. It seems to have been written in a spirit of co-operation and careful recall. It does not claim precision on dates and details where precision could not be expected. But it is definite that it was Mr Peters who sought his help some time after their first meeting. …

Mr Peters says this donation was solicited by Mr Henry. Mr Glenn says he does not know Mr Henry and does not believe they have met.

If neither is honestly mistaken in his recall, then one of them is not telling the truth. On a matter of public interest such as this it seems reasonable to ask what motive either may have for deception. It is hard to imagine a motive for Mr Glenn. He is primarily a Labour supporter, the largest donor to that party’s expenses at the 2005 election. He says he agreed to help Mr Peters in the belief this would aid the Labour Party, which of course has governed with NZ First support since the election. …

The questions raised by Mr Glenn’s testimony to the committee could not be more serious in their implications. Mr Peters should resign as Foreign Minister forthwith. If he were also to withdraw his party’s support for the Government, it is probably too late to force an election slightly earlier than Helen Clark may have in mind. But ultimately it is the public who will pass judgment on him and any party that seems likely to deal with him if he survives the election. Even National, ever tentative, has now cast him aside.

The Dom Post says much the same:

The noose would seem to be tightening around the political neck of NZ First leader Winston Peters. Given recent events, it is not before time, The Dominion Post writes.

This is a politician who has held himself out to be purer than pure, a man whose party – unlike National and Labour – would never deign to take donations from big business, a man who has criticised the secret trusts that fund the major parties’ election campaigns, the existence of which they acknowledge and declare.

Recent revelations suggest he is at best a hypocrite, at worst, a liar.

Actually at worst, much worse than just a liar.

At the very least in this unsavoury business, the foreign affairs minister – what a travesty that is – is guilty of rank hypocrisy over party funding. At worst, he is guilty of lying to the public and maybe more. To its eternal credit, the National Party has decided the smell can no longer be ignored and has ruled out a NZ First coalition unless Mr Peters can provide a credible explanation. Only a Serious Fraud Office inquiry appears likely to get to the bottom of other allegations that keep swirling around him.

It is unthinkable that the SFO would not investigate now, in light of what Rodney Hide revealed in the House yesterday.

And that, of course, is if the office is not disbanded first by this Labour-led Government, supported by the very man who is is now in its sights. The SFO inquiry into NZ First is still only in its embryonic stages, but investigators have now been in contact with two millionaires – the second is Sir Robert Jones – puzzled about where their financial contributions have gone.

Mr Peters has twisted, blustered and denigrated other politicians, corporate New Zealand and the mainstream media for long enough, all the while pretending to have never dirtied his hands with filthy lucre. For once his paranoia – that the media and his opponents are out to get him – is justified. They are – and for good reason.

Heh nicely put.

Finally the ODT also opines on Peters:

The essential question now with regard to Winston Peters is not whether his recollection of events is correct or incorrect, but whether he has been so damaged by the political donations disclosures as to be too much of a liability for the Government. …

The Prime Minister may well be waiting for what she has called the “court of public opinion” to guide her response, but if she means the forthcoming election then she is arguing an irrelevancy.

The election, which may be some months away, will not be about Mr Peters’ credibility as a minister, but a whole range of issues and policies.

The matter of Mr Peters’ credibility is singular and current.

He has spent many months now giving various responses to published reports and journalists’ questions regarding donations said to have been made, but not declared under relevant legislation, to him personally or to his party, New Zealand First.

That in itself has been damaging in the mind of the public; his explanation to Parliament’s privileges committee has now been shown to be contradictory to the recollection of two donors, Mr Owen Glenn and Sir Robert Jones, neither of whom have any known reason for their memories to be inaccurate. …

Over the past nine years Miss Clark has on occasion suspended ministers who, for a variety of reasons, were judged to be either temporary or permanent liabilities.

In the interests of consistency she should exercise that option again – if, in fact, it is available to her under Labour’s agreement with NZ First – until the privileges committee’s report has been tabled.

So that’s three out of three supporting Peters going.

The Police Association has attacked Police Commission Howard Broad for letting the taser decision (which is his) be used as a political delaying tactic in Parliament yesterday.

Police Association president Greg O’Connor said that while frontline officers should have been celebrating, the decision instead “highlights the politicisation of the highest levels of police”.

They are strong and damning words from the head of the police union.

The Police Association are also upset that the Goverment has decided to ban Police Officers from serving on local authorities. The flip-flop puts sees Labour now supporting NZ First on this issue.  Probably part of of a deal on the ETS.

Annette King tells the Police Association off for being ungrateful:

“Quite frankly, I am very disappointed Greg O’Connor and the association have used that sort of language. The reality is that New Zealand police have never had a better period than they have had under this Government.”

Yes Greg. What would you know about the Police. Listen to the Minister, shut up and be grateful.

One News summed things up well last night I thought. They picked up the significance of National effectively ruling Peters out. It removes NZ First as a kingmaker who chooses the Government.

They concluded that what this means is that a vote for NZ First is effectively a vote for a Labour led Government.

And if NZ First make 5%, it is almost impossible on current polling for Labour to form a Government, without Winston.

Up and down the country National Party members are celebrating as John Key has effectively ruled out Winston Peters as a Minister in a National led Government unless he can provide a credible explanation to the letter from Owen Glenn, which of course is impossible.

This makes the election an referendum on Peters with Labour in the wrong corner.

Helen Clark is misleading people by saying it is up to the Privileges Committee to work out the conflict between what Owen Glenn says, and what Winston Peters say.

It is not, and I predict the Committee will not. It is because the facts which are in dispute between Glenn and Peters are not material to the issue of privilege. They are very material to issues of lying and hypocrisy, but not material to the specific issue of privilege before the committee.

The issue before the Committee is whether or not the Register of Interests declaration by Peters is correct or not. Peters has asserted it was correct, as the donation was to Brian Henry, not Peters. Owen Glenn agrees with him on this point – the donation went to Henry to pay for legal fees.

The area where they disagree is whether or not Peters knew of the donation and whether or not he solicited the donation. Now these are irelevant to the issue of privilege, if the donation is deemed something which doesn’t constitute a gift or payment of a debt.

So Helen Clark’s insistence that it is for the Privileges Committee to resolve the conflicting evidence, is wrong and misleading. The conflict of evidence relates to whether or not Peters is a liar and hypocrite, not whether his MPs Return was accurate.

Winston Peters has stated that he only knew Owen Glenn had given money to Brian Henry when Henry told him in July 2008. Owen Glenn has said Peters solicited the money in 2005, knew of the donation, and thanked him for the donation in 2006 or 2007. There is no way to resolve those statements. It is impossible. The Privileges Committee can not do so, and it is not their job to do so.

Helen Clark sacked Lianne Dalziel for lying. She sacked David Benson-Pope for lying. It is the PM’s job to sack Ministers if they lie. But in this case she refuses to take any action. She could have resolved this months ago but is playing the same corrupt game she played with Taito Philip Field – trying to pass the buck to a body which is not empowered to discover the truth – because it is not an issue of privilege – it is an issue of lying and hypocrisy.

Someone posted a comment on Phil U’s blog, pretending to be me, telling Phil he is banned from Kiwiblog and making comments about his family.

Phil is not banned. He has been free to comment here since his one week suspension ended a week ago.

Rather than check with me whether the comment was genuine, Phil has now posted a long rant about how vile and odious I am.

It would have required minimal intelligence to work out it was a fake. I do know Phil’s e-mail as he has used it to register on my blog. I would hardly announce he was banned in a comment on his blog. And most of all I would never make make comments about the custody of his son.

The fact Phil was willing to believe all this, speaks more about him, than me. Very very sad.