Dunne also implicated in Meurant papers
November 3rd, 2008 at 7:47 am by David FarrarPhil Kitchin (and Oskar Alley) shows his independence by revealing that Peter Dunne also gets a mention in the Meurant papers with a $5,000 donation linked to his vote on a UN fishing plan. Dunne is denying a link.
While on a much much smaller scale than Winston (who appears to have had his entire policy process for sale), even one case like this is a cause for concern.
I agree with the Greens with their call to have a commission of inquiry into the Winston Peters cash-for-policies allegations. It goes without saying that any party implicated, should also be included in the terms of reference.
November 3rd, 2008 at 8:02 am
Labour’s CORRUPTION spreads to all its support parties.
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
Presumably now you’ll be calling on John Key to rule out any form of coalition or governance arrangement with Peter Dunne?!?!
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 8:13 am
The greater the number of NZers who rely on the State for some/all of their income needs (welfare, WFF etc), the fewer the number of people who will care enough to speak out on corruption like this. Increased State dependence creates an environment where increased State corruption can flourish.
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 8:18 am
Interesting to note that RadioNZ have barely given the latest Winston Peters story hardly a mention but jumped on the Dunne story straight away.
In answer to Dean Knight above, I don’t really want to see Dunne in a Key led administration. I want to see an National-ACT administration with no other parties involved. That will give more decisive government.
We badly need it.
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Dean – I think the allegations should be investigated and decisions made on what is revealed. With Peters there is a massive amount of evidence already out there showing at best he is a serial liar, and at worse profoundly corrupt. He has been ruled out by Key not on the grounds that he took money, or broke the law, but that he can’t be trusted to tell the truth.
With Dunne there is one singular allegation of one donation of $5k. Now don’t get me wrong – I want that investigated and agree with the Greens there should be an inquiry. But I don’t think, at this stage, the situations of Peters and Dunne are in any way equivalent.
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 8:48 am
Did Dunne declare his donation?
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 8:54 am
Where does it end David? No more anonymous donations as you could attach a ‘policy’ reason for everyone, surely?
Every political party can be tarred with the ‘cash for policy brush’ as far as I’m concerned.
It’s more about the whoring way Winston has gone about it, that’s the issue.
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 10:08 am
DPF: Of course. I don’t quibble that – a person such as this should be entitled to natural justice?
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 10:32 am
I hate to be fair to Prefect Peter but this one barely fails the sniff test. There is a fine line between donating to parties who you agree with (Insurance Council to National re. deregulating ACC) and buying policy (Vela/Peters). It should probably be part of the terms of reference but at this stage I am prepared to give United the benefit of the doubt.
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 11:02 am
GPT1 I agree that often money follows policy, rather than vice versa. However in the full article the implication is clearly implied that Mr Dunne behavour was being influenced by the donations. For example…
“Mr Meurant told Mr Vela: “I think Dunne is worth it. He will be a key actor in the finance select committee – and I believe the donation will have the effect of moderating opposition he [Mr Dunne] may have previously displayed toward IRD- related issues involving Vela Group.”"
Clearly her the allegation is that by donating to Dunne he will change his stance re tax issues of the Vela Group.
Similarly “The millionaire was also advised that giving Mr Dunne a $5000 donation could lead to the MP’s help with a tax issue the Vela company faced and for “access” to a parliamentary select committee.”
The donation is allegedly buying influence in the select committee and assistance with tax issues.
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I do struggle sometimes to follow Mr Farrar as he flip-plops between utter contempt bordering in ridicule of the Greens (99% of comments) and the occasional endorsement of a green initiative like this
Aren’t these the Nanny-state / socialist / watermelon party that you all despise?
Vote:November 3rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
Hardly credible he would sell himself for a piddly $5k given what he earned. The fact that his annual hairdressing expense is that same amount is entirely coincidental.
We should have a Comission of Enquiry if only to confirm how much he spends on his hair. And whilst we’re at it we should summon that silly obnoxious little fellow with the dead cat on his head … what’s his name … ah yes, Hosking, if only to find out how much he spends on carpeting the top of his noggin, why he has engaged The Leader’s dentist for this assignment, and more importantly, what he is trying to achieve with this revolutionary take on modern coiffure.
Vote: