ACT and the Sensible Sentencing Trust

October 25th, 2011 at 3:00 pm by David Farrar

I ran a guest post by Labour MP David Parker on Saturday.

In his guest post Mr Parker stated that at the last election took a large donation from the .

This appears to be a false statement. All donations over $10,000 are required to be disclosed to the Electoral Commission, and none was.This is an audited statutory return.

The ACT Party Treasuer and Secretary both say no donation of any amount was ever received, and the Sensible Sentencing Trust has said it never made any donation. In the absence of any proof from Mr Parker, I conclude the statement is wrong and have added a statement to that effect at the bottom of the post.

Tags: , ,

57 Responses to “ACT and the Sensible Sentencing Trust”

  1. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    I look forward to the SST’s lawyers concluding the same and filing suit against Parker. Good times.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. ben (2,414 comments) says:

    What is it with Labour? Are their supporters and marginal voters really so blind as to allow convenient lies to go unnoticed and unpunished? One can only conclude that is exactly what they do – otherwise Labour would quickly find it is not in their interests to lie so frequently.

    Remind me why organising mildly important services like health care and education via democracy is a good idea.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. robcarr (132 comments) says:

    When they came to speak to us at Vic Uni either this year or late last year they certainly gave the impression they were funding ACT. Perhaps they arranged to contribute in non-financial ways however like supplying volunteers and advocacy. (although that wouldn’t be covered by the statement in the previous post)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Nick C (340 comments) says:

    Why are Labour MPs such pathalogical liars?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kaykaybee (149 comments) says:

    Surely Parker should be the one to make a retraction to have any sort of credibility!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Grendel (972 comments) says:

    Since when did ‘an impression’ that someone (who is not exactly unbiased against the SST or ACT) has become proof or fact?

    what we know for a fact is that the Unions do contribute in both financial and non financial ways to Labour. no need for an impression there.

    but nice try trying to imply that some wrong doing is happening, by implying they are being sneaky about the manner of support SST may or may not give ACT.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Grant Michael McKenna (1,157 comments) says:

    I don’t see how the statement could be libellous. Surely the libeller/slanderer has to have some credibility before a claim for reputation damage can be entertained? Is there really anyone who believes Labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Grendel (972 comments) says:

    Nick, the reason Labour lie and lie and lie and break law after law (often laws they brought in) is they know they will never pay for it.

    the media are lazy or on their side so don;t get up in arms anywhere near as much as they do for something national or act do for something 10% as bad as what labour does.

    the public are mostly uninterested becuase they get told whats good or bad from the media (see above).

    those who read blogs have already made up their mind.

    basically they know that while the game has rules, only one side has to follow them and its not them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. sthn.jeff (100 comments) says:

    DPF :- Sounds like back pedallng and covering your butt !! Worried you are in the sights of Garth McVicars lawyers along with Parker?

    [DPF: Not at all. In fact I have been assured I am not. I got asked to correct the record, and am happy to do so]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Manolo (13,516 comments) says:

    Parker, a gray and drab socialist Labour MP lied. Nothing new in that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    GOAL!!! (own)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    It is such a DUMB lie….not only the (easily disproved) claim of a “large donation”, but also the claim that it was linked to my list placing….or my being a candidate at all..

    This rumour has been around since not long after the election, and became repeated more often when – to their great incredulity – it became obvious that the “draconian nonsense three strikes” was going to become law.

    Its actally even more defamatory of ACT, and I hope they smack the bastard with a defamation suit as well….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    …and futhermore…I KNOW SST doesn’t provide foot soldiers or any other non-financial assistance to ACT because when I was an MP I asked several times for such assistance, and they said no….they wouldn’t even give me a mailing list to send our “three strikes” information pamphlet to….and that was a much SST policy as ACT’s…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. 3-coil (1,204 comments) says:

    David Parker lies because he knows his target audience (ie Labour voters) are just “useful idiots”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. laworder (277 comments) says:

    sthn jeff wrote


    DPF :- Sounds like back pedallng and covering your butt !! Worried you are in the sights of Garth McVicars lawyers along with Parker?

    The Trust would not sue David Farrar. He is an innocent party in all this, and I know him to be a thoroughly decent and honourable man. He kindly offered Mr Parker a platform on which to post as a guest, and Parker repaid that kindness by using it to lie and make defamatory statements.


    [DPF: Not at all. In fact I have been assured I am not. I got asked to correct the record, and am happy to do so]

    And yes, as some who has seen all this go down from the start, I can confirm that yes David did correct the record – before we asked him to do so

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. s.russell (1,580 comments) says:

    This smells to me like a classic case of swallowing your own propaganda by mistake. Rather like a dog licking up vomit.
    When Garret was announced as an Act candidate, Labour naturally raised questions about it and insinuated that money had changed hands. Three years later they have forgotten that this was only their own mud-throwing, it has become established in their minds as one of those things that “everyone knows”.
    Thus we have a further example of Labour MPs living in their own seperate bubble world – divorced from what we call reality – in which black is white and socialism is cool and all the voters hate John Key.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    So David Parker has turned out to be just another member of the Labour caucus who tells porkies.

    But its not as if he has done it before, though, is it?

    Oh, oh…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    s. russell: that’s a pretty succinct analysis I think….and for the record the claim was denied from the time it was first made, so they only have themselves to blame if they think “everyone knows”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    Isn’t this David Parker, the fellow who was re-instated after he was declared “cleared” of filing contradictory paperwork (on the basis of some very dubious evidence) that merely proved one of the contradictory positions was probably true.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    scrubone: the very same sir….
    Funnily enough he never sued Ian Wishart who explicitly accused him of forgery….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    David: I remain amazed every time he pokes his head up in public that he isn’t hiding for shame in some deep dark hole. Yet here he is…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Graeme Edgeler (3,276 comments) says:

    Its actally even more defamatory of ACT, and I hope they smack the bastard with a defamation suit as well…

    I fail to see how ACT could sue. It may be defamatory of e.g. the ACT financial agent/party secretary, but ACT?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. scrubone (3,082 comments) says:

    I find it weird that Labour is completely dominated by the union movement, but if two organisations on the right find common ground there must be some sort of heinous conspiracy behind it!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Nookin (3,178 comments) says:

    Assuming that Act is an incorporated society, it could not bring an action for defamation unless it could show financial loss or the likelihood of financial loss.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DPF, I realise you try to be fair and want to stay on the inside in Wellington, but you have been used by the union propoganda machine that is the labour party.

    You should be fucking angry and take Parker to task, he bullshited on tax documents so why in god’s name would you trust him with your blog.

    This post today must seem like the walk of shame, you have been used by a cad, and a smarmy little bastard to boot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Nick K (1,128 comments) says:

    I fail to see how ACT could sue. It may be defamatory of e.g. the ACT financial agent/party secretary, but ACT?

    Yes. You cannot defame an organisation. I was the party secretary at the time and Parker is accusing me of filing a false return. Theoretically it is I who have been defamed, albeit it is very minor and not worth worrying about personally.

    Calling David Parker a liar makes me happy enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Johnboy (15,564 comments) says:

    I’m surprised FESter hasn’t given us a legal opinion on this topic yet.

    Perhaps he is otherwise engaged? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. thedavincimode (6,589 comments) says:

    “Calling David Parker a liar makes me happy enough.”

    You have low aspirations Nick K.

    I prefer low rent lying POS. But, that’s me I guess …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    The SST also said it couldn’t afford to make donations to political parties and was apolitical. Both those statements are wrong too, so you might like to amend your earlier thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    What’s this “you cant defame an organization” Nick?? some of the landmark defamation cases have been brought by companies….or is an incorporated society different from a company for that purpose? I’m sure I recall churches having successfully sued in defamation…(Havent got my torts book handy…)

    FWIW, I dont think his defamation of you is ” very minor”…he is accusing you – at least by innuendo – of being party to a gross breach of the Electoral Act is he not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > when I was an MP I asked several times for such assistance.

    Well, to be fair you are a criminal and the SST is all about helping victims of crime, so it was always a longshot that the Trust was going to assist you. But then the Trust did fork out $40,000 to Susan Couch so it has a little more money than it pretends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    ross: you are so brave! And You DEEPLY wound me….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Graeme Edgeler (3,276 comments) says:

    1. In New Zealand, companies can only sue for monetary damages caused by defamation, not for mere loss of reputation.
    2. I would be very surprised to discover that ACT was an incorporated society. Parties in New Zealand have tended to avoid having any legal personality whatsoever. There are financial reporting obligations under the incorporated societies legislation which parties have tended to want to avoid taking on: statements of financial position showing a party in debt, or showing how few (otherwise non-disclosable) donations they get are stories they don’t want.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. David Garrett (6,731 comments) says:

    So you disagree with SST assisting Susan Couch do you? What a man…..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. freddos (54 comments) says:

    Why does Labour keep making such dumb lies? They must know they will get caught in this day and age.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    I recall Matt Nippert discussing fundraising by Pansy Wong in an NBR article:

    “According to several National Party sources, Mrs Wong raised $200,000 at an event held in 2007 at Auckland’s now-closed Ocean City restaurant. It is understood party leader John Key was present at the event and after an auction $50,000 was paid for his tie. Sources said Ms Wong was thanked for this fundraiser at the party’s conference at the Langham Hotel held in August that year….Yesterday the National Party hierarchy insisted the donation was handled by the book but several informed party sources told the National Business Review of their concern over the whereabouts of this donation and how it was accounted for…. Donation returns filed to the Electoral Commission show only one payment greater than $50,000 was declared by the National Party in 2007. The Waitemata Trust, known to be used as a half-way-house by donors preferring discretion, donated $424,100. Mrs Wong’s ultimately successful campaign for the Botany electorate seat also does not appear to account for the $200,000.”

    Hmmm isn’t is strange all those “donations” haven’t been accounted for? Knowing Pansy, I am sure it was just a genuine mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > What a man…..

    That’s a bit rich coming from a “man” who stole a dead baby’s identity and obtained a false passport.

    Susan Couch deserves assistance, but Peter J insisted the other day that the SST was run on the smell of an oily rag and had no money. It turns out that was false (has DPF corrected that error?), as evidence by it paying Ms Couch’s not insubstantial court costs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. laworder (277 comments) says:

    Ross wrote

    The SST also said it couldn’t afford to make donations to political parties and was apolitical. Both those statements are wrong too, so you might like to amend your earlier thread.

    No, we said we couldnt afford to make large donations to political parties. To me “large means six figures up. Given that we have repeatedly said we do not make donations of any size to political parties as a matter of policy, your first point is basically irrelevant. Unless of course you have proof that we have made a donation to a political party
    c
    You have also stated that the Trust is not apolitical. You now need to
    1) define what you mean by apolitical and
    2) provide proof

    For the purposes of this debate I will assume that apolitical means not being aligned with or favouring any particular party or telling its members or voters to vote for or support any particular party

    Given that we are still waiting in the original thread for you to provide any proof whatsoever that ANY political party in NZ has or would ever sell a list seat placing, I will not be holding my breath. I believe Clint, Chuck and others who also asked you for answers there will not be holding theirs :-)

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. laworder (277 comments) says:

    I see from the original thread that David Parker has (sort of) retracted his original statement.

    Silly man obviously never had proof in the first place

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Pete George (23,299 comments) says:

    Garth McVicar has today (25 October) said that the Sensible Sentencing Trust has not made donations of money to any political party, including Act. It appears from his statement that the only gift the Trust itself made to Act was David Garrett. What donations, if any, came from members of the so-called Sensible Sentencing Trust to Mr Garrett or Act I do not know.

    That’s a weasely sort of retraction. Not good enough.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. laworder (277 comments) says:

    Given that it is from a weasely sort of man I guess it is as much as we can expect :-)

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Scott Chris (5,967 comments) says:

    Thing that puzzles me is the fact that Parker’s been around the political traps for years, so it seems strange that he would just make up something like this without there being some substance to the claim. Maybe 1 of 20 donations of $9999 was made by a now disgruntled 3rd party on behalf of the SST. Certainly the sordid Garrett affair wouldn’t have gone down well with many of those lobbyists. Who knows?

    Parker:

    >>”Some are also aware Act knew this when they took a large donation from the misnamed Sensible Sentencing Trust and made Garrett Act’s law and order spokesperson.”

    My guess is that ACT’s last coffin-nail is about to be hammered home once the RWC hooplah has subsided.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Clint Heine (1,568 comments) says:

    As expected, “ross” is stirring the pot and throwing around unfounded allegations. I was right all along, only an idiot would presume this. Ladies and Gentlemen, we have our idiot!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    I don’t think that was a retraction at all. I keep thinking Labour must hit rock bottom soon, but then they manage to crash a bit more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Anthony (785 comments) says:

    Scott Chris thinks it strange that Parker would just make something up?????? Where have you been for the last 10 years Scott – I mean Helen Clark never noticed her car was speeding, never got a staff member to draw a picture she signed, etc, etc.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Rat (383 comments) says:

    Mnnn

    All that means that the amounts recieved and recorded are audited, not those which are not. Means nothing DPF. Best would be to look at Sensible Sentencing, which is difficult, its not a Charity.

    Parker may have been wrong, but Farrar is incorrect too with the verification basis

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Rat (383 comments) says:

    DPF
    Page 12 of that return

    Look at the lower part of the Audit report, the Qualified Section.

    We cannot use your argument as proof, the Auditor (The only Independent Party involved) has told you so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. laworder (277 comments) says:

    Yes, but the point here Rat is that those who are making the allegations of corruption etc etc need to provide proof. It is not up to the accused to prove their innocence – both Act and the Trust have been very clear in stating that no donations were ever made.

    Neither Parker nor others have been forthcoming with proof of anything at all. Until they are, neither Act nor the Trust are under any obligation to do anything

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Rat (383 comments) says:

    Laworder

    Farrar was using a document as proof, where the document has no credibilty whatsoever, infact none of the Electral Donations Audits mean anything in regards to its purpose.

    If people were innocent until proven guilty, then this forum would die

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > the point here Rat is that those who are making the allegations of corruption…

    Except nobody has made such allegations. It’s funny but you’re the only one who has used the c word. And you’ve proven yourself to be untrustworthy, claiming that the Trust couldn’t afford to make donations (when clearly it can) and saying the Trust was apolitical (when it isn’t). So anything else you might say, unfortunately, has no credibility. You could, however, provide a detailed list of the Trust’s expenses and income (but you won’t).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. ross (1,454 comments) says:

    > To me “large” means six figures up…

    So a donation of $90,000 wouldn’t consititue “large” and could therefore slip your memory. Priceless.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. laworder (277 comments) says:

    Ross, this is the second time you have alleged that the Trust is not apolitical.

    Proof please?

    Um, if buying a list place isnt corruption then what is? That is the allegation David Parker made. And has failed to substantiate (surprise surprise).

    I also never said that the Trust cannot afford to make donations, I said that it cannot afford to make large donations. I have repeatedly said that we do not make donations of ANY size to political parties. Before we quibble about quantities, it is up to you to provide proof of any such donation in the first place to ANY party.

    I also still await proof that Act – or ANY party – would sell a list place. That should be easy given how wide I have opened it up for you now

    When you provide some proof of anything that I or Clint or others have asked for I’ll happliy provide the accounts – as it happens I want them anyway so I can put a summary up on the site. The media have requested them in the past and been sent them and presumably found nothing worthy of note.

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Elaycee (4,332 comments) says:

    Jeez ross – you really are a sad bugger. But if you back your own bullshit and think that you know better than everyone who is genuinely involved, here is a suggestion:

    Accuse anyone you like of corruption / dishonesty / malpractice / whatever you like. GO for it – if you say its true then it must be right. Be sure to sign off these allegations with your real name and address and then buckle up. Your sorry arse will be spanked so hard you won’t be able to sit for a month. And I suspect your pocket will be much lighter for the experience.

    You are nothing more than a typical, sorry arsed leftard who reverts to bullshit whenever your preferred version of events is exposed for what it is – an attempt to rewrite history. Thankfully, the electorate can see through this crap – for that reason your like minded mates will be subject to the mood of the electorate next month.

    But I’ll think of you when I raise a glass of bubbles on the night. I really will…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RightNow (6,839 comments) says:

    Sad and desperate? Must be a Labour supporter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. bhudson (4,736 comments) says:

    ross,

    The right of silence is not an admission of guilt. Or to put it into this context, SST not providing information they are not obliged to does not mean they have done something you care to charge them with.

    One can only surmise that you are deeply disappointed that the amendments to the right of silence were withdrawn from recent legislation…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Clint Heine (1,568 comments) says:

    ross obviously has been “fed” partial information by somebody and is backtracking endlessly.

    Just a bit of proof would be nice.

    Proof that the SST bought a lost spot.
    Proof that SST made large donations.
    Proof that SST have considerable amounts to make such donations.

    Hiding under a false name whilst making defamatory statements must make you feel like such a big man. I bet you’re a hit with the ladies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. laworder (277 comments) says:

    I’ll settle for proof that ANYONE has bought a list spot with ANY party
    Or that SST have made donations of ANY size to ANY party

    I bet we’ll still be waiting Clint :-)

    Regards
    Peter J
    Webmaster for http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    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.