Responding to Winston

November 25th, 2011 at 3:20 pm by David Farrar

Winston has said:

Rt Hon Winston Peters says the National Party’s paid blogger David Farrar is spreading confusion about New Zealand First on the last day of the election campaign at the behest of politicians who should know better.

Winston normally starts with a lie, and he rarely disappoints. I’m not paid by anyone to blog. The blog does gain some revenue though through advertising, and the major advertisers this election have been Labour, Greens and Forest & Bird.

And the blog post was not at the behest of any politician. Not a single person knew I was going to blog on this, until it appeared. The issue only came to my attention this morning.

Farrar has written a blog about New Zealand First claiming it is an incorporated society when in fact it is a registered political party. An incorporated society simply holds and protects the name “New Zealand First”, which has been the case since 1993.

Winston is claiming there are really two New Zealand Firsts. I quote in rebuttal from an article by David Fisher, then of the Listener on 16 August 2008:

Contacted by the Listener, Catchpole, treasurer from 2005 until the party’s convention earlier this month, says: “They are one and the same really, the incorporated society and the party, because the party constitution and rules are all registered with the incorporated society. That basically makes it one entity.”

Winston is again relying on deception. If they were different entities, why would other rules changes been filed with the Registrar.

I also quote his party president:

Asked about the incorporated society, Groombridge says: “That’s the party itself.”

No one but Winston thinks they are separate entities. remember this is the man who said on dozens of occasions that he knew nothing of the $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn.

Tags:

56 Responses to “Responding to Winston”

  1. Manolo (13,767 comments) says:

    Tomorrow NZ should put the boot on this charlatan once and for all.
    The sooner the venal Peters disappears, the better for our country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. immigant (950 comments) says:

    Well, He’s got balls to say stuff like that in public I’ll give him that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    If it’s a lie, put your money where your mouth is. Sue Peters for defamation.

    [DPF: Sadly I do not think I could win. Having Peters attack me and tell lies about me, actually increased me standing and reputation amongst most members of the community, so I could never make a case for harm done]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    DPF – we are cool right? Cause I’d hate to end up on your shit list.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Grizz (605 comments) says:

    If Peters gets back in, he will be constantly reminded about the $158,000 he stole from the taxpayer or the $100,000 donation from Owen Glen he failed to declare. Also many other lies will come to the fore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Tom B (55 comments) says:

    DPF – I think it’s been pretty clear from the ads on your blog that you are financially supported by political parties.

    It’s just that the parties are the Greens and Labour!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Fisiani (1,039 comments) says:

    If five in a hundred voters choose to vote for Winston then New Zealand is saddled with Goff, the Greens, Hone and The Maori Party and Winston et al.
    If forty five in a hundred vote for National then we have a Labour government.
    This is the result of having MMP.
    Either scenario is disastrous for the country.
    So the solution is clear. Party Vote National if you care about this great country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. kiwi in america (2,449 comments) says:

    You’re doing God’s work here David but my legal layman’s mind wonders who would have standing to challenge the legality of Peters’ election to Parliament should he manage to stumble across the 5% threshold.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    Does it matter in the slightest that Dean Knight, Graeme Edgeler and myself have all commented on your original post on this topic, saying that it is irrelevant whether or not the “NZ First Party” = “NZ First the Incorporated Society” … the fact Winston is on the list in breach of its rules will not affect has status as a candidate?

    That seems a more important point than the one Winston is arguing … your basic premise – “his candidacy is illegal, so he can be kicked out if elected” – is flat WRONG.

    Unless, of course, you’ve a lawyer willing to come on board and say different?

    [DPF: I was very careful with what I said. There are two issues. The first is whether Winston's list nomination is valid under the rules of NZ First, as registered with the Registrar of Incorporated Societies. I do not believe it is. Winston's claim that the party and the incorporated society are different legal entities has no valid basis to it.

    Now many incorporated societies break their rules, and nothing happens. If you think a governing body is not acting in accordance with the rules, your options tend to be to get the members to sack the governing body, or to seek a court declaration that the action was invalid.

    No less a person that Winston Peters himself has tried this in Peters v Collinge. And another relevant case you will know well is the lawsuit by Roger Payne, as he quoted your theories at length that there is an arguable case that political parties are part-public and that there is an obligation for them to follow democratic candidate selection procedures.

    Following your own legal rules is arguably an important part of that.

    Now I was again careful not to say this Winston's nomination is invalid under the Electoral Act. I said if he is elected, there could be a court challenge.

    I specifically said that the illegality is under the Incorporated Societies Act, not the Electoral Act. However quoting the theories of Geddis on the need for democratic selection procedures, I think one could make an arguable case in court that you could try and link the two together - that breaching your democratic rules, will breach the Electoral Act. This is what Mr Payne, whom you advised, argued.

    Of course Mr Payne did not succeed, and I have not claimed that any court challenge likely to succeed, I said it could be challenged.

    Hopefully Mr Peters will not be elected, but if he is it will make life much more fun for me as a blogger, as he makes such a good target. Andrew Williams should be superb also.

    But if he is elected, I would greatly enjoy seeing a lawyer quote the theories of Professor Geddis, in favour of Mr Peters not being a valid candidate, just as Mr Payne did.

    I hope this clarifies my views on the issue]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Dave A (61 comments) says:

    Peters and his bluster know no bounds. He never gives up. He will still shout in your face that a Cook Strait ferry scraped its bottom in 1984, and that Selwyn Cushing tried to bribe him at Michael Laws’ wedding, when even Laws will tell you that the wedding was not when Peters’ diary “entry” claimed it was and that Peters fabricated the claim….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Richard29 (377 comments) says:

    DPF – this is a sideshow and it’s a shame you’d launch a partisan attack like this on the day before the election.

    Plus it’ll probably backfire – you know how NZ First voters love a good conspiracy theory.

    If I wake up on Sunday morning to find that Winston scraped into parliament by a few hundred votes on the back of free publicity from “The bloggers and media are out to get me” martyrdom I’ll blame you.

    Stop giving the clown media oxygen.

    This is mischief of the most unhappy variety that you are fomenting!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Unsolicitedious (13 comments) says:

    Winston lying – now there’s a surprise!!! How come no one asks about the $150k he owes us?

    And Labour & the Greens advertising – ironic given they are providing financial support to a blogger who, like his followers, is unlikely to every agree with or vote for them. Waste of money much?!!!

    But oh well, at least the funds from the red devil help to keep the site going….all par for the cause and you never know, perhaps we will convert them!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    If it’s a lie, put your money where your mouth is. Sue Peters for defamation.

    He would be hard pressed to prove that the lie caused any damage.

    Does it matter in the slightest that Dean Knight, Graeme Edgeler and myself have all commented on your original post on this topic, saying … the fact Winston is on the list in breach of its rules will not affect has status as a candidate?

    One, this isnt a real-time conversation. You have to give blogger’s a chance to review the comments in threads, even if they post something else in the meantime. Writing new posts is different to reviewing and responding to comments. Give it time.

    Two, shouldnt WP be citing that in his own defence? Why wouldnt he be?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    The rules of an incorporated society are, in effect, a contract binding its members. They are not enforceable at the suit of a non-member.
    New rules are not binding until registered.
    Technically, another member could apply for judicial review of the decision to allow Winston to stand. However, given that the new rules have been accepted by the society and would probably be registered by the time the matter ever got close to the court door, the prospects of any member setting aside the decision would be extremely remote (even if they were so inclined).
    If anything, the episode is an indication of a bit of sloppy housekeeping and possibly minor embarrassment. Winston made matters worse by coming up with an illogical response. The best response would have been “yeah, we stuffed that one up, we will fix it on Monday”.

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

    So what is the Electoral Commissions take on the accusation and the person called forked tongues rebuttal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Dave A (61 comments) says:

    Winston made matters worse by coming up with an illogical response. The best response would have been “yeah, we stuffed that one up, we will fix it on Monday”.

    But Winston has never, ever, once admitted to getting ANYTHING wrong at all.

    He is always right.

    He possibly even believes that himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    If Winston does slink over the line I hope the National party WILL challenge his election and not wimp out with the usual “oh but he will get all upset if we offend him”.
    Who cares what the NZ First nutters think or say? get stuck into him!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Ross Miller (1,704 comments) says:

    Just whether it is legal or not is a moot point. The reality is that Winston First has NEVER worried about legal niceties. Never has, never will. David, for better or worse you are now tagged as part of the great media conspiracy against him. Zimmer framers will just lap that up. Problem for the 95% as that we care about NZL. We don’t want a charlatan and a crook deciding our future and a charlatan and a crook is what Winston Raymond Peters is with bells on..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    a contentious matter such as this requires the input and incisive analysis from a
    top of the line legal eagle.

    Step up to the plate F E Smith.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. XChequer (298 comments) says:

    @ Richard 29

    “Stop giving the clown media oxygen.”

    It’s certainly given WP no oxygen to talk about anything else today

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Nookin (3,341 comments) says:

    Someone at the bottom of the totem pole forgot to lodge some documents. Well spotted by DPF, good smokescreen but not a game changer. Much worse happens on a daily basis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. barry (1,317 comments) says:

    David – like so many in the media/blogosphere etc, youve yet to learn that ANY mention of peters gives him oxygen.

    Call him a lump of goat shit – and the media are after him to get another ourtrageous comment – and they just love him because he will oblige. He provides the media with entertainment – which they dont get from anyone else.

    If he gets in I think Key will have trouble with him even if he does stay on the cross benches. Accuse him of theft and dishonesty – and hell love it. And he and Hone will go at each other – so its going to be interesting – maybe even fights…..at least chucking food I hope….

    Actually I look forward to his return. National have really done bugger all in the last 3 years – but the earthquakes and explosions dont help. Their asset sale is just stupid and they ignored the anti smacking referendum, where more people voted for a change than voted for national in the last election – yet they agreed with the 1200 or so who voted for a maori flag – opps sorry – mana part flag.

    Labour have obviously been stuck in a “blame the bloody voters” mode since last election. However they have come up with some good ideas (capital gains etc) but they come plenty of loopy ideas.

    Im worried about the greens. They seem to be rational – but the crazies are still there and the crazy ideas are on page 2.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    @ Kimble – you don’t have to prove financial loss to sue in defamation. Only that the comment made has harmed or is likely to harm your reputation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Kimble (4,438 comments) says:

    @ Kimble – you don’t have to prove financial loss to sue in defamation. Only that the comment made has harmed or is likely to harm your reputation.

    I wasn’t talking about financial loss.

    My point was, if a known liar lies about you, then who is harmed by the lie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Graeme Edgeler (3,289 comments) says:

    a contentious matter such as this requires the input and incisive analysis from a
    top of the line legal eagle.

    Step up to the plate F E Smith.

    I’m pretty sure AG and Dean Knight are both top of the line on these legal matters. AG as New Zealand’s pre-eminent electoral law expert, and Dean as a highly respected administrative law expert.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. thepolecat (63 comments) says:

    Lame. Edgeler has already said elsewhere that Farrar’s claims are..

    “Irrelevant.

    He is entitled to be nominated (citizen, not in prison, etc.). He is eligible to be an MP.

    He was nominated.

    We get to vote.

    This is beyond the scope of an election petition after the election, and possibly within the composition privilege of Parliament anyway. A Court cannot enquire into this after the election. Even if they could, it would be the people lower than Winston on the list who could complain. And they won’t. And even if they did, the Payne litigation would suggest that there’s nothing the Courts could do.

    And finally, even if you are right, this is good reason to vote for NZF, not a bad one. We could get a socially conservative, economically nationalist party into Parliament, but not have Winston there.

    Be wary of s 199A, DPF.”

    Be VERY wary of s 199A, David.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    NickR are you saying that if I say something bad about Winston he will sue me? that I can have Winston cross examined in open court where ALL his sins can be brought out? where I can ‘dare’ him to tell fibs?

    If so then Winston, if you are reading this – you have had carnal knowledge of a mountain goat and I want all NZ First voters to know that.

    There! just defamed him. So sue me Winston – and I eagerly await the opportunity to go to work on your testicles.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    Step up to the plate F E Smith.

    Sorry, Graeme’s 5.25pm comment is absolutely correct.  I am a criminal lawyer and I am not able to give any expert comment on this situation.  

    From what I have read, I tend to agree with Graeme’s view as set out in the original Winston thread today,  and also the commentators that he mentions. 

    But, as I say, this isn’t within my area of expertise.  Alex Masterley would be more the person to ask on this, although given Graeme’s area of expertise I am happy to accept his view as definitive.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. tvb (4,421 comments) says:

    This is vintage Peters. You start with an outrageous statement usually wrong and that becomes the story. That Farrar is paid by the vast right wing conspiracy to blog. Then he obfuscates the truth regarding his party. It is an utter smokescreen aimed at providing a thin patina of respectability. Peters will maintain this until hell freezes over, proving a more and more confusing explanation. He yammers away with confusing prattle that has no logic or sense. Goff has adopted the same approach when trying to explain things going wrong. Peters is the Joker of NZ Politics so brilliantly played in the Batman movies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Gary2 (17 comments) says:

    “National have really done bugger all in the last 3 years…”

    Actually Barry, they have done a surprising amount – it’s often only when you hear a list of it all that you realise that. Such things as the large increase in elective surgerical operations, the increase in cops and the decrease in crime, the improvement in sentencing with the 3-strikes law and others, the movement of civil servants from the back office to the front (or out the door), progress on issues like land tenure review, national standards and the RMA. There is much more of course and the last thing we need is for small parties to drag us off in directions that take away our focus on getting the country where we need it to be.

    I totally agree with you on the Greens!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    Sorry all,
    i was too subtle for my own good @ 4.57

    i was trying to be sarcastic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. oldpark () says:

    Check out the other lunatic Cunliffes rave on WHALEOIL BLOG or go to u tube his gutter comments about John Key NZ Prime Minister has gone viral.Seems sums up the lowest form of electioneering ever heard of in the fair country of NZ.CUNLIFFE COULD IN FACT REPLACE GOFF.U tube video should be kept for future reference,if and when Cunliffe is not dumped by his cohorts.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. F E Smith (3,305 comments) says:

    i was trying to be sarcastic.

    Oh. On that basis, you weren’t being sarcastic, just rude.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Nick R (507 comments) says:

    @ JamesS – Well, I can’t promise you Winston would sue, although he has in the past. But yes, you’d be able to cross examine him. In front of a jury too, if the case is issued in the High Court. Interestingly, if Peters sues you, you have a defence of qualified privilege for political comment – the Lange v Atkinson decision. But the reverse probably doesn’t apply if someone else sues him, unless they are also standing for Parliament.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Q. Hey Winston are the party and the incorporated society one in the same ?
    A. “NO”.

    OK that’s it folks, Winston said they are not the same so it’s settled. Lets move on….

    Winston has got to be in parliament, every circus needs a clown.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. joana (1,983 comments) says:

    desperate stuff.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. bka (135 comments) says:

    Nick R, being wrongfully accused of being a paid blogger for the National Party may be extremely offensive to DPF’s sense of himself, and also in that it contradicts what he says of himself, but it doesn’t seem the most heinous of offences to be accused of. For someone it could be an honourable profession, a bit like being in charge of media releases etc. He has an admitted and obvious political affiliation as well , it is not as if most of his political posts would be coming from an opposite direction.
    It is a cheap way of drawing attention to DPF’s affiliation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. IHStewart (388 comments) says:

    @ Dave A

    ” But Winston has never, ever, once admitted to getting ANYTHING wrong at all.”

    Actually just last week he admitted to getting it wrong on National Radio saying the recording of the Key Banks conversation was wrong. He rang back in and said he was wrong and it might have been legal and as a result has quite possibly secured his political future. Anyone listen to the Panel with Jim Mora today and Mike Williams ? Or Brian Edwards last week on the Nation ?

    Hold your nose and vote NZ First tommorow if you are CENTRE left and detest the current Labour party, hope like hell Banks & Dunn are history and National needs to do a deal with the Greens on abstaining on confidence and supply in return for no asset sales.

    That is the message I am getting.

    On a lighter note a National Party mate of mine who was tasked with taking down hoardings dropped in this morning for a Coffee. I suspect the coffee was the motivation but he asked me about the voting referendum and while I support MMP I think his logic for voting for a change is good not because we will lose MMP but because we wil get a chance to review it and then put it up against another system.

    Oh I almost forgot is DPF
    Jeffry Archer
    Wilber Smith
    Edward Rutherford

    Or Jeffrey Archer

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. JamesS (352 comments) says:

    Who is Edward Rutherford?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. oldpark () says:

    @IHStewart why dont you ask DPF yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. AG (1,827 comments) says:

    “However quoting the theories of Geddis on the need for democratic selection procedures, I think one could make an arguable case in court that you could try and link the two together – that breaching your democratic rules, will breach the Electoral Act. This is what Mr Payne, whom you advised, argued.”

    By advised, I assume you mean “told him about an article I wrote then instructed him to piss off”, but whatever. The point is, there’s a tiny (but very tiny) chance that a judge reviewing the way the NZ First list was composed might just say “even though this was put together under the rules the NZ First Party thought were in effect, the fact that these had not been filed with the Registrar meant they were not actually the rules governing the selection process and so because they were not complied with I will declare the Party list to be a breach of contract.” But … so what? The list has been submitted under the Electoral Act. It meets the terms of the Act. (The “democratic selection” issue is completely irrelevant here … and even if a list was put together in an “undemocratic” manner and given to the CEO, so what?) Therefore, any declaration that the list was created in breach of the party rules cannot affect the legal validity of that candidacy of those on that list. So you can quote any theories you want – this is a losing claim.

    I’m assuming that you’re being truthful when you say “Not a single person knew I was going to blog on this, until it appeared. The issue only came to my attention this morning.” So that means you hadn’t run your argument past a lawyer with some expertise in the area of electoral law (or administrative law generally). Now you have put it out there, you’ve the 3 most blog-active lawyers with knowledge of this area telling you that you are plain wrong to call Winston’s candidature “illegal”, and pouring scorn on the chances of any legal challenges after the election.

    If this doesn’t cause you to doubt the ground you stand on … well, so be it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. David Farrar (1,895 comments) says:

    I am always being truthful, so your assumption is correct. I note the comments of yourself and others and will pass them on to any disaffacted NZF member who might contemplate legal action.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hj (7,011 comments) says:

    nationals really scared of Winston ,after all:

    “New Zealand’s change in immigration policy dates back to the early 1990s when the gap in productivity with other nations became pronounced between the years 1970 and 1990. Higher immigration was intended to fix the problem.

    In its report, the SWG claims the move backfired.
    “The policy choice that increased immigration, given the number of employers increasingly unable to pay First-World wages to the existing population and all the capital requirements that increasing populations involve – looks likely to have worked almost directly against the adjustment New Zealand needed to make and it might have been better off with a lower rate of net immigration.”
    http://www.interest.co.nz/kiwisaver/52140/migration-policy-linked-inflated-housing-prices-government-spending-and-low-savings

    and John Key says : “we are a pro migration country”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nostalgia-NZ (5,202 comments) says:

    On a slightly different note, Winston is probably now taking a quiet drink while considering what might be returned to him tomorrow. The sails are full with the wind of his name and he knows he has a gambler’s chance to stand where many hope he may have alredy fallen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hj (7,011 comments) says:

    National was still well ahead of Labour in the final polls of the election campaign and New Zealand First has made it over the 5% threshold in one of them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. polemic (460 comments) says:

    Winston says “No” :) :)

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

    I know him personally, and thus possibly better than some of you. I think he’ll always be worth his money, for, if nothing else, the winebox.

    Some of you may be too young to know anything about that.

    He put himself through university, labouring in the holidays, on the Snowy Mountains Hydro Electric Scheme in NSW.

    In the early 1970s, he was instrumental in obtaining a top legal team to successful defeat the government in it’s bid to take tribal land.
    Many of the young people living on this land today, don’t know that.

    In the early 1990s he took it to merchant banker Fay Richwhite claiming tax fraud by an affiliated company.
    He stood almost alone, most of the press and politicians being as gutless as we are now seeing in America.

    This is what he thought was crooked:
    A company named Magnum, (owned by another company called EPI), paid the Cook Islands Government $2 million, received a tax certificate, presented it to the NZ tax dept,
    received a tax credit for $2m. The Cook Islands Government paid a refund of $1.95m to another member of the EPI group.

    I think a $50k bribe, bought a $2m tax credit. What do you think?

    Eventually public pressure brought about a Commission of Inquiry, which came to be known as “The Winebox Inquiry”. (because he brought his papers in a wine box)
    Again a top legal team, Brian Henry, Tony Malloy QC.
    Three years later the Commission concluded that there was no fraud by anyone or incompetence by the NZ tax dept, or the Serious Fraud Office.

    Various appeals lost, then the Court of Appeal overturned the Commission’s decision, sent it back to the High Court.
    The High Court findings were too complicated for me (Im not a lawyer)

    But there were changes made to tax law.

    He hung in there for years against the 1%, and all their “Hooray Henrys” and the simpletons regurgitating the rubbish put out for their use.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Other_Andy (2,676 comments) says:

    “He hung in there for years against the 1%…”
    Thanks for the laugh.
    And…
    You forgot to mention that he loves dogs and is a vegetarian.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    He still betrayed his mandate in 1996, Bewell. That is unforgivable in my eyes, and yes I’m old enough to remember the wine box affair. I used to admire Winston in those days but those days are long gone.

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

    50% is a pass, well done Other Andy

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

    Winston has a point though.

    Through the Incorporated Socities registrar, The ACT party were struck off a few years ago. In Farrars fantasy world, they don’t exist.

    I don’t think Farrar should be encouraging anyone to vote for a ghost party

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

    well, would you look at that !!!

    Using Farrars “indepth” knowledge of the Incorporated Societies Act , guess what ?

    The National Party, nor The Labour Party dont exist neither.

    Its an election with dead parties.

    what a chump

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dexter (303 comments) says:

    “He hung in there for years against the 1%, and all their “Hooray Henrys” .”

    And then along came Owen Glen……….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. bereal (3,137 comments) says:

    FE Smith, you are right.
    my comment above was uncalled for and out of line.
    Sorry.

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

    no response, I guess Farrar will leave sleeping dogs lay.

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

    Hi Dexter,
    which Owen Glen do you mean?
    The expat, NZ1%er, who wanted to be, (or was it buy) our Consul in Monaco?
    OR
    The one who has made many philanthropic payments to all sorts of good causes?
    OR
    The one who’s company DCL, settled out of court for about a million, for alledged fraud via breach of American shipping regulations?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote