Clark and the Glenn donation
September 1st, 2008 at 7:02 am by David FarrarThe NZ Herald says this week will see a focus on the PM’s knowledge of the Owen Glenn donation.
The more I think about it, the more appalling it is that she said or did nothing. Let us first dispose of her claims that she had no choice but to accept Peters’ word.
- The convention of accepting the word of an MP, only applies in the House itself. There is no such convention in the wider political sphere.
- More importantly, accepting someone’s word only applies up until there is evidence which contradicts that word. The direct testimony of Owen Glenn that he donated $100,000 to assist Winston Peters is evidence.
- In previous cases where the evidence contradicts what the Minister says, Clark has asked to examine the evidence. She had her staff examine media tapes of Benson-Pope’s interviews to determine he had lied, and sacked him.
- This was not a case where one had to accept the word of Glenn over Peters or vice versa. A donation is a provable fact and she could have gained absolute proof with a single phone call.
- She could have urged Peters to contact Glenn to find out why he thinks he donated. That would be the 100% logical thing to do, unless you suspected Glenn was right and Peters was lying.
Now let us look at all the things one may have expected an ethical Prime Minister to do. Did she do any of the below?
- Seek legal advice from the Cabinet Secretary or the Solictor-General as to whether she had an obligation to disclose Glenn’s revelation that he had donated $100,000 to assist Peters.
- Inform the Electoral Commission that she has information which warrants investigation as to the accuracy of NZ First’s 2005 return. OR
- Inform the Registrar of MPs Pecuniary Interests that she has information which warrants investigation as to the accuracy of Winston Peters’ 2005 return.
- Inform the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that Owen Glenn had told her that he had donated $100,000 to assist the Foreign Minister, and that this created a conflict of interest for Peters in determining whether or not to appoint Glenn Consul to Monaco
Just as bad, she sat there while Winston Peters did his infamous “No” press conference, knowing that Owen Glenn had told her it was yes.
And even worse on the 18th of July, when Peters announced the $100,000 donation, she knew conclusively he was lying as Peters said the first he knew about the donation was earlier that day when Henry told him. But he knew, at a minimum, back in February when the PM told Peters what Glenn had said.
People need to understand that the entire last six months has been a charade. When Winston Peters pretended to be angry at the allegations, Clark knew that Glenn had told her that he has donated.
Even when Peters outrageously slandered the NZ Herald, accussed them of fabricating the Glenn e-mail, and demanded Murphy and Young resign, Clark stayed silent. It was an inaction unworthy of the highest office in the land.
Peters was actively considering Owen Glenn for a diplomatic appointment. Clark had been told by Glenn that he had donated $100,000 to assist Peters. This created a huge conflict of interest. But it seems Clark sat on this information. Doing so undermines the integrity of her Government.
And finally we have the hypocrisy. The rhetoric about how we needed the Electoral Finance Act to stop secret donations to political parties. And two months after that law was passed, Helen Clark learnt of a huge $100,000 secret donation. Even worse she learnt of it from a man seeking favours from the Minister he claimed to have donated it to benefit. But did she do anything at all? Did she demand the donation be revealed as she had just spent six months vowing that such donations be exposed? No she just sat there and asked no questions, and allowed Peters to keep denying it.
Related posts:
- Clark also damns Peters
- Clark reveals she knew
- Glenn donated $100,000 for Peter’s legal expenses
- Some facts about Owen Glenn
September 1st, 2008 at 7:11 am
But you’re overlooking, David, that he’s an “Honorable Member” and a “conscientious and hard-working Minister”. Are you too thick to understand what’s important here?
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 7:17 am
From Hansard on Aug 26
Gerry Brownlee: Does she still accept all of the assurances that she has recently received from Winston Peters about the various allegations made against him?
Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have accepted the honourable member’s word, and will continue to do so unless something arises out of the Privileges Committee or some other appropriate authority that suggests I should not do so. But I do not have such information.
*******************************************************************************************************
Does this mean that the PM does not consider the PM to be an appropriate authority? Can someone ask in parliament if the PM still has confidence int he PM and if so, why?
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 7:17 am
Another succinct appraisal of the particular issues over the OG donation.
It actually makes me want to physically vomit.
What really pisses me off is that is so discoverable, and childish actually.
Excuse me whilst I go into the Garden and Upchuck!
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 7:24 am
That feels a whole lot better. Carrots, always bloody carrots.
“Does this mean that the PM does not consider the PM to be an appropriate authority? Can someone ask in parliament if the PM still has confidence int he PM and if so, why?”
There has to be a a move to a vote of (no) confidence, and after the vote if the correct result is not obtained. May I suggest that Citizens (Members) Arrest’s may be in order?
Bollocks just call the Police, Bollocks just call the AA. Bollocks
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 7:32 am
Paul Henry had our Left Dishonourable PM rather flustered this morning on Breakfast TV, trying to explain her way out an impossible situation using a very limited range of very carefully chosen words.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 7:39 am
slightlyrighty: one of the best comments i’ve ever seen here. Clark was clearly misleading parliament in her answer to Brownlee and should also be investigated by the privileges committee. let’s hope Hide or National read your comment and take action.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 7:43 am
Why do we believe that the wealthy are honest, the statement that Owen Glenn had no motivation to lie is ill informed and naieve. It is not about money it is about vanity. People who donate money and then want buildings named after themselves and want to become the Console for Monaco are driven by vanity. As was shown in paintergate vanity is a key driver behind dishonest behaviour.
Also was Nationals stance to cut Winston loose driven by McCully who was likely to loose his portfolio (Foreign Affairs) if there was a coalition with Winston. And did the SFO decide to do an investigation because they also want to save themselves from the gallows by preventing the Act going thru under the current Government.
I am concerned that the politicians are becoming the puppets of our media pack, please remember they have no friends and they can turn very quickly. As I want to see a change of government please be careful and sort thru all of the agenda’s and work strategically it looks as if all of our politicians including National have brought into the media’s trench fighting agenda
I hope National returns to taking the high ground values that we value – like innocent until proven guilty. We do not need our country run by the media pack and that is what is happening at the moment.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
clartk has just accused key of being ‘tipped-off’ by the serious fraud office..
..and that that is why he made his ‘principled’ no-more-winston ‘stand’..
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/helen-clark-accuses-john-key-of-receiving-tip-offs-from-the-serious-fraud-officeand-urges-him-to-come-clean/
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:04 am
phil, when will your learn? When Clark accuses others of some misdemeanor, that just means she’s up to the same mischief. You do understand she is actually accusing the civil servants in the SFO of impropriety, don’t you?
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:14 am
“Now let us look at all the things one may have expected an ethical Prime Minister to do”
Yeah right!…You are talking about dear corrupt leader DPF, that wimin would not know what the world “ethical” means.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am
How low will this woman go in the persuit of power.
Harriet, I think Key has done the right thing. Whether Peters has acted illegally is now not the issue, in fact it never has been the issue. You can’t stand up and rail against secret trusts and big business influence when you are just as guilty, it is hypocritical. To put it at its most basic how would you feel if your partner has spent months getting angry at accusations of infidelity only to finally tell you the truth. Nothing illegal done just immoral and that is where Helen and Winston have fallen down.
For the left to keep screaming about Nationals trusts is pathetic, as their trust just like Labour’s declares their deposits to the party. So what if we don’t know where the funds come from we do know they get business help. So do Labour, the Greens and others. To think it is just National is naieve.
Wake up this is about our future as a democracy.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am
Slam dunk.
Great post.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:25 am
According to the PM the media never asked her whether she knew about the $100,000…simple as that really!
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:26 am
Tipped them off Phil?
About what exactly? How could that be???
Whinnies done nothing wrong and all the nasty right wing bloggers are just picking on him aren’t they?
Oh and back on topic, what an excellent post!
Wouldn’t you love just half of what is surmised in the above post to be put to Clark in the MSM?
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:28 am
“The more I think about it, the more appalling it is that she said or did nothing.”
Yeah, its appalling all alright, but what’s more appalling in the lameness of the mainstream media, who should have been onto this months ago. Above we have some out of touch touchy feely leftie whining about “the country being run by a media pack” and politicians being the “puppets of a media pack” and these are the kind of delusional statements that identify the left but unfortunately also have the effect of preventing those within the media who are effective journalists from doing what needs to be done. Exposing government corruption and dishonesty is the media’s real job, and in this instance, they’ve been incredibly slow getting out of the blocks.
When the left squeal about right wing media bias they are foxing. Its a political strategy designed to hobble those few within the media who might want to put the left under real scrutiny, and give blind side support to their media plants, those so called journalists who constantly spike any story that might make Helen Klark/ Labour look bad.
That Klark/ Peters have been permitted to conceal the truth on these matters for so long is a sad illustration of the ineffectiveness and political corruption of NZ’s media. Mr. Farrar is right to call the Prime Minister a hypocrite. This is starkly correct. But its a call that should have been made many months ago by a media that by its inaction has earned the same label. How can they go after corruption in government when the corruption of the media by the left in this country is so deeply embedded?
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:37 am
“..You do understand she is actually accusing the civil servants in the SFO of impropriety, don’t you..?”
yep..!..that’s why i reported it..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:47 am
Welcome back Paul Henry!
“So Prime minister with this conflict of evidence you asked and received assurance from Mr Peters”
Vote:“Yes”
“So you believed him”
“Yes”
“So you don’t trust Mr Glenn but you are happy to take money from him”?
September 1st, 2008 at 8:51 am
“..budgieboy (25) Add karma Subtract karma +1 Says:
September 1st, 2008 at 8:26 am
Tipped them off Phil?
About what exactly? How could that be???..”
now..listen carefully..budgie..
..sfo tips off key they are launching a wide-ranging inquiry into peters..
..(are you still with me..?)
..now..john key..armed with this knowledge nobody else has..
(that’s called a ‘tip-off’..budgie..are you still with me..?)
..comes out and makes his ‘principled-stand’..
..(did you ‘get that..?
..if not..get back to me/ask someone to explain..)
and adolf..that clark is accusing key of impropriety/’pulling the wool over our eyes’..
..is as significant a ‘story’..
..as the sfo impropriety allegations..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 8:56 am
Questions that need to be asked in Parliament in light of the SST article that Labour/NZ1 had $100K to spend fighting electoral petitions in Tauranga and Epsom post 2005 election:
1. To the Prime Minister: Given that the Prime Minister has proclaimed herself Labour’s Chief Political Strategist, how does she justify the strategy of arranging Labour’s main donor and overseas billionaire Owen Glenn, and other ‘rich pricks’, to fund electoral litigation after the 2005 election in order for the Labour party to try and form a coalition government with New Zealand First and does she consider this purchasing an election?
Supplementary
2. Is the Prime Minister concerned at the report in the Sunday Star Times over the weekend that ‘rich pricks’ and an overseas billionaire were arranged by Labour Party President Mike Williams to fund electoral litigation after the 2005 election in order to purchase an election when letter writers to the New Zealand Herald on 17 November 2007 were adamant that elections must not be influenced by “money politics”.
That letter is here:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/11/finally_an_electoral_finance_bill_supporter.html
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:05 am
i quite like williams’ statement about that glenn donation to labour..
(para-phrasing) he said’..i have spent years asking thousands of people for donations..
..and this one time..someone said..’i'll give you half a million dollars’..
..what was i going to do..?
..say ‘no’..?.)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:07 am
Harriet Jones -
Firstly welcome to the opinion scrum!
re ‘innocent until proven guilty’, are you happy with an ethically bankrupt leadership if it can (a) prove it didn’t break the law or (b) change the law to retrospectively void the consequences? I believe that everyone – you, me, the media etc, must rise up and demand some integrity from our leadership. But if anyone else wants to sit on the sideline piously balancing the finer points of innocence vs guilt then that’s their right I guess.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:12 am
I see the PM is now attacking the SFO accusing it of leaking to National – of course she never got a heads up of what was going on despite their so called independence.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10529991
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:14 am
Philip Ure – you’re talking crap again, as was the PM. She also slagged off Owen Glenn this morning (just waiting for the video to post) – I guess when you make the decision not to make any further donations to the Labour Party, you are no longer worthy in the PM’s eyes.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:15 am
could someone get a t-shirt printed up for key with his apogee in false-piety..?
“..i am sickened by the smell of money…and secret donations..’
(and maybe underneath.(.in brackets..)..
..’a bag-man repenteth’..?
(he said this as part of his rehearsed fulminations..
..after he was tipped-off..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:19 am
“Why do we believe that the wealthy are honest, the statement that Owen Glenn had no motivation to lie is ill informed and naieve… ”
hehe I can tell which side of the fence you’re on by your attack on wealth, but yes, it could be that Owen Glenn is mounting a “vainglorious” (hat tip to Deborah Coddington
LOL ) campaign of revenge, but as long as he turns up to say his piece, and given about as much time from here to the election, it will be impossible for his motive not to be completely revealed. He did afterall, refuse to answer seven questions from the PC, chosing instead to say what he wanted. I agree also that in the beginning the MSM asked some pathetically straw-grasping questions and they were definately going for the “end justifies the means” type approach. It took people outside the MSM to start a real investigation and to guide as to which questions should be asked.
However, you go too far to say the media runs the politicians. The MSM suffer from the same small industry incest that pervades most industries in NZ. That smallness supports ideals that are sympathetic to the left wing perspective on life. They are complicit in this coverup, trying both weakly to escape and knowing that they don’t want to escape at the same time. They don’t ask because there is the high chance that the answer would do more damage to their personal and industry culture than it would do to the country. Their values first, everything and everyone else second.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
Key was clear on the reasons why he rules out Winston, no tip-off required, Helen’s just making a baseless smear.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:21 am
Whoar, copying stories off stuff for your blog again? I know you have to come here and annoy all the kiwiblog users as no one actually visits your blog, but please, your comments, even for you, are wearing a little thin.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:23 am
re the ‘slagging’ of glenn..
she pointed out that glenn had claimed he gave the half mill to labour..
..to help them fight off the exclusive brethren..
..but the money was donated six months before the election..
..at a time when the exclusive brethren were on nobodys radar..save for key/brash etc..who were plotting with them..
..so..how the hell does that add-up..?
..and what does that say about glenns’ power of recall/memory..?
..clark also noted that glenn has claimed that she (clark) had promised him a cabinet posting..
..something that it is (labour party) constitution/practice..that this is not something she can even offer…
..once again..what does that say about glenn..
..and as that much of the lynch-mob ‘evidence’ directed at peters..
..hangs on glenns’ word..
..these are very valid/relevant points..
..how can they not be..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
Wonder how long it will take for the smear to turn up on the Standard
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
did someone in london just fart..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:30 am
yea, in your face
)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:33 am
I am reminded of the last moments of a Dalek… firing wildly in all directions in the hope that they kill something before they themselves die.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:34 am
shall we all hold our breath..?
both to avoid the fart..
..but also in expectation of the pearl that will drop..
..as comment number four..
..from our scatological expatriate..
dunno about you..
..can’t wait..!
(and of course..the burning question is..
..what/where is comment number one..?
..what have we missed..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:42 am
nice … it appears that i have your back up now. tho, it is you, not i that study in feces my socialist little friend. good night.
Vote:September 1st, 2008 at 9:56 am
heh..!
maaate..!
you were ‘easy’..
..eh..?
best you go and have a wee lie-down..eh..?
..and a cup of tea might help settle your nerves..
..(there are ‘support-groups..y’know….)
(yours..from the home of running dog socialists..
..’keeping new zealand red..!’..as it were..
(and um..!..comment number four wasn’t really up to much/expectation..eh..?
..just a cry of defeat/retreat..
and..should we call off the search for comment number one..?
phil(whoar.co.nz
Vote: