More changes to Winston’s stories

September 21st, 2008 at 8:10 am by David Farrar

has a very useful blog entry analysing what Winston says now, and what he said before the truth came out.

As readers will know, Winston is outraged because the passed on evidence to the Privleges Committee that proved Peters and Henry lied. In Winston’s world it is outraegous if law enforcement agencies expose his lies.

Audrey notes:

Peters confirmed that the had reimbursed his lawyer the $40,000 Henry had personally paid for costs awarded against Peters in the Tauranga electoral petition, talking to drive-time host Larry Williams on Friday night:

This is quite crucial because if anyone but Peters paid that $40,000 debt then beyond doubt that had to be declared on the Register of Pecuniary Interests.

”Mr Henry paid the money initially. He was later reimbursed out of the trust account from the Spencer Trust funds. In that sense yes,” Peters said. ”But that was a trust to assist the New Zealand First Party and any actions it might take. What’s wrong with that?”

What is wrong is Winston failed to disclose this. Just as NZ First failed to disclose donations from the Spencer Trust.  This is not a series of one off “mistakes”.

The great service done by the SFO investigation has been to expose the failure of NZ First and Peters personally to disclose funding from the Spencer Trust. And in case anyone really thinks it was all a mistake – consider the fact that these “mistakes” only came to light due to the SFO. Peters did not at any stage move to correct on his own initiative his public statements. He only admits to something once law enforcement agencies pry it out of him.

It means that the information Peters gave in a speech on August 20 to supposedly “clarify” what had been said about the $40,000 at the two days earlier was actually not true.

“Mr Henry paid the money [$40,000] to ensure the bill was paid in time – and he was later reimbursed by myself,” Peters told Grey Power in Upper Hutt.

“He checked his records yesterday and found this was indeed the case.”

A clarifying letter was sent to the privileges committee to that effect.

People should be very aware of this point. The lie which has been exposed by the SFO is not about what was said at Privileges Commitee in response to Russel Norman. Most people would accept that you could be mistaken when responding to an unexpected query on the spot.

But what we have here is Peters claiming two days later, in a formal speech, that he had “checked the records” and Peters had reimbursed Henry. And they were so certain of this info, they sent a letter to the Privileges Committee stating this.

Their claim and letter was false. The Prime Minister once again keeps Winston with his baubles of office despite the fact he has been exposed at deliberately deceiving the public and the Privileges Committee. This was no mistake made in the heat of the moment. It was a statement made two days later which they claimed was based on a check of records.

Peters’ admission about the reimbursement also raises questions about whether the $40,000 should have been declared to Parliament in 2007 in the Register of Pecuniary Interests.

There is no question that it should have been.

We now know the Spencer Trust was run by Winstons’ brother, law partner of his brother and a staff member in Winston’s office. And it paid personal bills on behalf of Peters. So Audrey reminds us of this press conference:

Q: Mr Peters are you seriously saying that people are meant to believe that you don’t know what the ST is used for?
A: Yes I do. You know why? Because those are the facts.
Q: We asked your brother yesterday and he wouldn’t answer the question.
A: Well Audrey you should show a bit of knowledge, experience and a bit of commonsense, right? Go and ask him again.
Q: Who should we ask?
A: You’re entitled to ask it all the questions you like.
Q: But you’re not answering them.
A: How can I answer them if I’m not in charge of the trust.
Q: Because you know what that trust is using the money for.
A: Sorry I don’t.
Q: Really?
A: Well I just said no I don’t.

And as you read what are really bare faced lies (unless you think Winston can somehow not know that the Spencer Trust paid a $40,000 debt on his behalf), remember once again that Helen Clark has no problems keeping Peters on.

Audrey also goes back to the original Privileges Committee hearing when Brian Henry lied and insisted he paid for it personally (you would know the difference between paying $40,000 out of your own pocket and temporarily paying $40,000 and getting reimbursed). He obviously did not want to admit the Spencer Trust effectively paid for it, so in response to an incredulous Wayne Mapp:

Mapp: Are you seriously suggesting that you would’ve paid $40,000 in court costs which were against Mr Peters and you advised Mr Peters of that fact, and that Mr Peters would not have understood that that would’ve effectively come out of the $100,000 – well the donations received?

Henry: Mr Mapp, I’m not ‘seriously’ saying it; I am saying it. I’m not suggesting it. I’m telling you exactly what I did…..So don’t slur it – this is what I did. I’d like to finish with Mr Mapp….Mr Mapp I am telling you what I did. So please do not slur it or belittle it by saying ‘Are you seriously suggesting….’ This is actually what I did. You mightn’t like it but that’s what I did.

Such outrage, all faked.

Whale Oil also blogs about further revelations from Spencer Trustee . On radio Currie said that they spent money on behalf of NZ First, after consulting with “someone” who was not a duly elected office holder of NZ First. That someone would be McClay on behalf of Peters I suspect.

You have to wonder if there is a single MP or office holder in NZ First with any spine? The party president didn’t even know of the Spencer Trust. Money meant for NZ First went into the trust, and then spent on behalf of the party bypassing the authority of the NZ First President and Board.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

23 Responses to “More changes to Winston’s stories”

  1. petal (705 comments) says:

    “You have to wonder if there is a single MP or office holder in NZ First with any spine?”

    Do we? Have to wonder, I mean.

    I thought it obvious that in ANY OTHER PARTY, the leader would have been rolled by now.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Huluns feral paranoid grip on power is resigning laybore to the electoral scrapheap.

    Bugger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Inventory2 (10,246 comments) says:

    I blogged about this last night DPF, after listening to the Larry Williams interview with Peters on Friday. I think Williams nailed it with his last question – had he (Peters) received the Privileges Committee’s draft report?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    i’m sorry..!..i can’t read these anymore..

    ..my eyes just glaze over..

    but..an ‘a’ for effort..eh..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Rodney Hide (60 comments) says:

    Winston Peters has worked hard to keep the donations and the Spencer Trust secret. Why?

    The question now is who was tipping the money into the Spencer Trust. And why.

    Rodney Hide

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    like everyones feeling towards your unreadable stacato regurgitations of newswire items

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    You know, in Crete I had the best Scampi ever.

    Was called langoustines or shrimps over there.

    Think that Luigi is up to his neck in all sorts of stuff, and Helen Clark isn’t far behind.

    So tell us Helen, and your assorted pastiche of weirdo’s. What are you hiding? the truth is going to find you out. The good news is

    that a mate of mine is very high up in the UN. Once the shenanigans become Public, you are history. The whole world is sensitive

    and

    on red alert!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. philu (13,393 comments) says:

    ah..rodney..

    now that you are here..could you please detail for us your ‘secret trusts’..?

    and the large/eye-watering amounts you/act have received from ‘interested parties’..?

    ..over the years..?

    ..are the million dollar/half-million dollar rumours true/correct..?

    ..and..what were the promises from you/act..they were buying..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. davidp (3,570 comments) says:

    Hey, we knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peters was a corrupt liar about two months ago. So this is all old news. But…

    Did anyone see Peters at the Korean Association meeting yesterday? One of the non-NZ First candidate MPs talked to the group in Korean and Peters spit the dummy. Told them (paraphrasing) that they were bloody rude to invite him along and not provide a translator, and that it was thesort of thing they did in North Korea. It was an “Oh my god… did he really just say that?” moment.

    So, is he melting down? Or is this the first strike in the NZ First campaign to win back the anti-Asian vote?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. dad4justice (8,017 comments) says:

    Winston is from the Chameleon species, who has successfully adapted a forked tongue as a survival mechanism, unlike phool the green loser, who is a full time drug addict.

    [DPF: And that is 20 demerits. Respond to Phil's points, do not provoke a flame war]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. David Farrar (1,880 comments) says:

    Yes that TV3 news item was appalling publicity for him. It shows though how he really feels he is the master, not the servant, of the people – the way he lectured the Koreans.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. alex Masterley (1,507 comments) says:

    Spine & NZ first in the same sentence? An oxymoron if ever I saw one!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Put it away (2,888 comments) says:

    WTF what a cock with the Koreans. Someone should have done an impromptu Tae Kwon Do demonstration on his face, but I guess Koreans are a bit more concerned about being polite hosts than he is at being a polite guest. Pity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Portia (204 comments) says:

    That’s it, saturation point finally reached. As I started reading this post, my eyes glazed over and will not budge. Shame if the best bits are still to come, because I am O.V.E.R Winston and anything even remotely pertaining to him.

    For someone with Winston’s character structure, any attention is better than no attention. He prefers adulation, yet thrives on confrontation; just so long as he is being acknowledged. His secret fear is, probably, indifference.

    Which means that the most effective way of ensuring the demise of NZ First would be to simply ignore Winston. But is the media really ready to let him go??

    A Winston-free Kiwiblog anyone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Tim Ellis (253 comments) says:

    We now know why Winston Peters was so desperate to prevent the SFO from giving its evidence to the Privileges Committee, that he smeared them with a complete side-issue. We also know now why Cullen refused to express confidence in the SFO, which reports directly to him, because this evidence is so damning.

    Peters claimed that Section 39 of the SFO Act prohibited the SFO from making a submission to a select committee. On this point, he is just plain wrong. Section 39 protects the secrecy of information obtained by the SFO using its statutory powers to demand information from witnesses.

    However, this secrecy provision only applies to information obtained under its statutory powers. Peters appears not to have read Section 36(2) of the SFO Act, which reads:

    Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the Director may disclose such information, or authorise any other member of the Serious Fraud Office to disclose such information,—
    (a) If the person who disclosed the information to the Serious Fraud Office consents to that disclosure; or
    (b) To the extent that the information is available to the public under any Act; or
    (c) For the purposes of this Act or in connection with the exercise of powers under this Act; or
    (d) For the purposes of any prosecution anywhere; or
    (e) To any person who the Director is satisfied has a proper interest in receiving such information.

    What this means is that if somebody willingly provides the SFO information, as Rodney Hide has, the SFO can advance this to the Privileges Committee, if the Director believes it is relevant to the PC’s inquiries.

    Further, it seems clear that the SFO did not even have to use its statutory powers to investigate the Spencer Trust. Here, Peter Williams seems to say that statutory powers weren’t used:

    Mr Peters’ lawyer Peter Williams told Newstalk ZB the documents were not “seized” by the SFO. He said the documents were requested and were then handed over.

    Winston Peters should go back and read the law. The SFO Act makes it quite clear that if the SFO has information that could be of interest to any inquiry, which the SFO did not obtain through its statutory powers, then the Director should report it.

    I would say that if the SFO Director has information that a witness before a Select Committee lied to that Select Committee, that’s pretty good grounds for reporting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. grumpyoldhori (2,416 comments) says:

    David, this whole saga about Peters reminds one of a Nat politician who was
    saying how unfair it was in NZ, he could only speak of taxation matters to
    the Labour bloke opposite.
    If he bought it up among his fellow Nat MPs, their eyes glazed over.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. DJP6-25 (1,341 comments) says:

    Keep going after them Rodney. You are doing a great job.

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. DJP6-25 (1,341 comments) says:

    Glutaemus Maximus. I enjoy reading your posts. However, I’m not sure that the antics of the Clark-Peters Axis will preclude Mssssssssssssss Clark from a UN post. Kofi Annan didn’t lose his job over the Oil for Food scandal. The majority of the members come from the usual collection of kleptocracies, monarchies, dictatorships, thugocracies etc. Just the sort of places this type of conduct goes unremarked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. georgebolwing (733 comments) says:

    My tip is that the Privileges Committee, by a vote of 8 to 5 (National and ACT), will clear Peters of the direct charge of not disclosing a donation in the register of members interests. I think Peter Williams has done just enough to muddy the waters on whether it is actually a gift that has be be declared. It will be a technicality, but the argument will be that if Henry never issued an invoice to Peters, then Owen Glenn paying money directly into Brian Henry’s bank account was not a “gift” to Winston Peters.

    But, I think by a vote of 8 to 5, they will cite Peters and Henry for contempt of the Committee, specifically that they deliberately attempted to mislead a committee (Standing Order 400(a)).

    Then it will be up to the House to decide (a) if each has committed contempt and (b) what the penalty should be: the Committee has no power to make a finding, it can only make a recommendation to the House. The question will then be whether the House has the time to consider this matter before it rises.

    If it goes to a vote, I suspect that both will be found guilty, although there will be much debate about whether it was “deliberate” or accidental. If found in contempt, Peters will be suspended for the remainder of the session — a high penalty in Parliamentary terms, even if well short of what will happen to him in the court of public opinion. Henry will probably be formally admonished by the House. But, his real punishment will be at the hands of the Law Society: I suspect you get struck-off for being found to have attempted to mislead a committee of Parliament about your dealings with your client.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mara (759 comments) says:

    Some of us here might wish to see Winnie repair to a safe, serene, caring environment where kindly medical types slip him the occasional whisky along with the standard medications, and scampi on special occasions, before tucking him into bed with his teddies. I’d be one of them, but would not rely on the Court of public opinion to back this wish. Too many enfranchised noddies, the olds and other “sidelined” folk love a battler and still believe him to be the Messiah. Look at the polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Glutaemus Maximus (2,207 comments) says:

    DJP.

    Understand why you say that.

    Everyone knows that the whole of the UN is awash with corruption.

    They don’t however invite people to join them if they have already been pinged by the Media as corrupt.

    Two reasons. Firstly they wish to retain a sense of decorum. Secondly, they hate competition.

    Fear that the newcomer might be a better scammer than the incumbents.

    There is only so much to embezzle afterall, and They prefer their family and friends to have first dibs.

    Eh Mr Annan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. DJP6-25 (1,341 comments) says:

    Thanks Glutaemus Maximus. It would be nice to be rid of her in the Untied Nations. It looks like she’ll be ratttling around in NZ instead. Pity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,823 comments) says:

    Hels will suffer the ignominy of fading from the political scene never to be heard of again. She’s yesterday’s woman and there is no place for her to represent New Zealand in the future.

    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.