The Shane Jones issue

May 28th, 2012 at 9:00 am by David Farrar

It was good to see the media cover the Jones/Liu issue in detail over the weekend. Now the court case is over, one can look at where this should end up. First it is useful to consider all the background on Liu, when remembering how two separate  Ministers refused official advice to rescind his residency and to refuse him citizenship.

  • Born Yongming Yan on 15 June 1969
  • He was Chairman of Tonghua Jinma Pharmaceutical which collapsed after a loss of around NZ$100m and he fled China in 2001. It is alleged they were manufacturing placebos.
  • As he fled he gained identity documents in the name of , with a DOB of 20 October 1972. In total it appears he had four passports with three different dates of births, and two or three different names.
  • We charged in China with fraud and embezzlement. The alleged fraud totalled not $2.5m as reported by some media, but between $170m and $250m.
  • CCTV in China reported in 2007 that Australian authorities there confiscated and repatriated A$3.4m  to China. This was per a decision by the NSW Supreme Court.
  • Yan moved to New Zealand and purchased two properties worth $7.4m. He paid cash for them.
  • Yan claims to be a member of Falun Gong, and cites this as why he left China. However Falun Gong prohibit gambling, and Yan was the largest customer of the Sky City casino.
  • Paid Labour Party fund-raiser Shane Te Pou $5,000 to help his citizenship application. Te Pou (whom Clark had banned from the Beehive over ethical concerns) introduced him to Internal Affairs Minister Rick Barker. Te Pou was also campaign manager to Dover Samuels, whom his brother had also worked for.
  • Samuels received a $5,000 donation from a Tamaki Wu who appears to be a fictitious person, and whose listed address is owned by Daniel Philips, brother of Shane Te Pou.
  • Yan also donated $5,000 to Chris Carter and to Pansy Wong. Rick Barker also received an “anonymous” $5,000 donation the same year.  It is also a matter of record that Labour held several fundraising dinners at the Jade Terrace restaurant, attended by Yan. At these dinners the “bucket” is literally passed around and no one knows how much any one individual contributed. They are reputed to sometimes raise a six figure sum in one evening.
  • Barker did not recuse himself immediately on the basis of his friendship With Yan. In fact he stayed involved until quite late in the piece when he delegated the decision to (Jones was not the Associate DIA Minister, and any Minister could have been chosen) – the one Minister whose most senior office staffer was the brother of Shane Te Pou who was being paid to help him get citizenship.
  • Jones was strongly advised not to grant citizenship, on the multiple grounds of the Interpol warrants, the criminal charges in China, the multiple identities and the ongoing investigation by Immigration NZ over whether he was even entitled to residency. Jones granted citizenship.
  • Yan given citizenship by Dover Samuels in the Maori Affairs Select Committee Room on 11 August 2008, five days after the decision.

As people can see this is not just an issue about one Minister, Shane Jones. It is about the combined decisions and advocacy of Shane Te Pou, Dover Samuels, Rick Barker, David Cunliffe and Shane Jones.

The Serious Fraud Office has told the Auditor-General they have an interest in this case, and may investigate also. I think it is appropriate to state in my opinion Shane Jones has not broken any law, and there is nothing to indicate that he received any personal financial benefit from making the decision he did. This makes this case different to Taito Philip Field, who did receive considerable benefits from his activities as an MP and was charged with corruption and bribery.

I don’t think any reasonable person could dispute that the decision by Jones was wrong. His claim that an official told him Yan would be executed in China has no basis in reality. Not only does DIA have no record of this advice being given, this was an issue over citizenship not deportation. Also Yan’s claims of being Falun Gong are also contradicted by the evidence. In fact he has no evidence to back up his claims, while the DIA concerns were all fully documented. Also as reported here, Jones deported a 25 year old resident back to Iran, despite her claims that she faced a death penalty for converting to Christianity.

Now as I said Jones is not the only player here. Many Labour people have acted wrongly in my opinion. Dover Samuels’ advocacy on behalf of his good friend was totally inappropriate, and bordering on the threatening. As we saw in the Nick Smith case MPs should generally not get involved in advocacy for their friends.

Rick Barker was wrong to not have immediately recused himself from the case, and wrong to delegate the decision to Shane Jones – the Minister whose SPS was the brother of Shane Te Pou who was helping Yan with the application. Barker would have known this as Te Pou introduced Yan to Barker.

David Cunliffe was wrong to have also gone against the advice of his immigration officials, and not rescind Yan’s residency (a move which was cited as a reason to make Yan a citizen).

Shane Te Pou was wrong to take $5,000 to help Yan with his citizenship application. That is an activity incompatible with being a political party fundraiser.

Shane Jones was wrong to grant citizenship, and to (presumably) authorise the special ceremony at Parliament.

As I have said previously, I do not believe Jones received any personal financial benefit from approving the citizenship. I do not believe Jones broke any law. But how you judge his actions can vary between a worst and a best case scenario.

The best case scenario for Jones is that he just gave Yan citizenship because Samuels asked him to. He trusted Dover’s judgement, and decided pleasing Dover was more important than the good character test in the Citizenship Act. Now this is not illegal, and Ministers do have discretion. However I believe such a failure of judgement means Jones is not fit to be a Minister again. If Nick Smith is removed as a Minister for a mere letter of advocacy, then Jones for granting citizenship to someone obviously not qualified has offended far worse.

Also, even putting aside the decision itself, Jones has shown incompetence in not documenting his decision. If I was a Minister of the Crown and I was making a decision that goes against official advice, I would absolutely ensure my reasons for doing so were documented, signed and dated and that this be added to the official file. It is because Jones failed to do such a basic thing, that there is enhanced speculation over what his motives were.  The fact that the decision was one where he had been lobbied by his political colleagues should have made it even clearer that he should have documented his decision.

That is the best case scenario. That is based on an assumption that no one ever told Shane Jones that Yan was a very wealthy man who had already donated to Labour, and presumably would donate more in future. This means that Dover Samuels never mentioned it, Rick Barker never mentioned it, Chris Carter never mentioned it, Shane Te Pou never mentioned it, and Shane’s brother Daniel never mentioned it despite being the most senior official and advisor in Jones’ office.

You see if any of those people did tell Jones that he had donated to Labour, and implied Labour would do well out of Yan in future if he was made a citizen, then it literally becomes a case of selling citizenships to donors. Now again this is not illegal, as far as I can tell. Only if a specific donation was promised for a donation, would it be illegal – and I am unaware of any evidence that this was the case. It was about buying influence, not buying a decision.

Now I don’t know of anyway we can resolve if it is the best case scenario or the worst case scenario. The SFO have said they have an interest in the case. However as I have said, there do not appear to be any laws broken. So I don’t see a role for the SFO, unless there is more to emerge than is currently in the public domain.

Now we have the letter from David Shearer to the Auditor-General. His PR says:

“Based on my discussions with Shane Jones, I believe that he followed a proper process. But given the differing statements made in and outside of court and the questions that have been raised publicly, I believe that an independent agency should review the case.

“I’ve asked for the Auditor-General to look into all the departmental as well as ministerial processes involved in this case.

The trouble is here that the issue is not generally about process. The process is that DIA provides a background paper and a recommendation and the Minister makes a decision. The only process issue I can think of is Jones failing to document his decision, but the wider issue is that Jones has made a decision which runs contrary to all the evidence (as opposed to unsupported allegations) in this case.

Now the Auditor-General is in no way bound by the terms of reference proposed by David Shearer. She has the authority and power to set a much wider terms of reference. If she does investigate, she should set as wide a terms of reference as possible.

But there is still a big problem. The Auditor-General’s scope is generally the Government. Would the Auditor-General be comfortable determining how much money Yan donated to the Labour Party. Could she determine whether Yan was the “Tamaki Wu” who donated to Dover Samuels (from the address of a house owned by Daniel Phillips, brother of Shane Te Pou). Can the Auditor-General find out how much Yan donated at the Fundraising dinners. Testimony would ne requited from Te Pou, Phillips, Samuels and Yan himself.  Maybe though this mystery DIA official whom Shane Jones can’t even name,whom he insists told him Yan would be executed, can be identified!

So overall, upon reflection, I am unsure if an inquiry by the Auditor-General will resolve issues. As I said, the issues are not just about Shane Jones, but about numerous Labour Party people – many no longer in Government. The Auditor-General may not have the scope to fully investigate, and at the end of the day it is impossible to prove whether or not Jones was or was not influenced by the fact Yan was a donor to Labour.

What I, and others, have advocated in the past is for an Independent Commission against Corruption, with powers like the SFO has. The NSW have one, which works well. An ICAC could investigate not just breaches of the Crimes Act, but abuses of power in the wider sense – such as Government decisions favouring donors and mates of MPs. They do not have the ability to prosecute but have the standing powers of a royal commission to investigate, report and recommend charges if warranted.

Ultimately this issue is likely to be resolved as a political question, not a legal one. David Shearer needs to consider whether he regards the following as appropriate:

  • Labour Party fundraisers acting as agents for people wanting a favourable Ministerial decision
  • Labour MPs advocating in the strongest possible terms on behalf of their friends and known Labour donors
  • Labour Ministers refusing the rescinding of residency and granting citizenship to donors, against the advice of officials
  • Labour Ministers not documenting any reasons at all for why they overturned a recommendation, and allowed citizenship to someone whose identity wasn’t even known, had an Interpol arrest warrant out for them, and was under investigation by multiple agencies
  • Labour MPs declaring donations by seemingly fictitious people, allegedly living at a residence owned by a senior Ministerial advisor

If David Shearer wants to say that is all fine, and is business as normal – well that is his call. But I suspect he knows in his heart of hearts that things were not kosher, and that Yan would never have been made a citizen if it were not for the fact he donated to and befriended multiple Labour MPs, through the efforts of Labour fundraiser Shane Te Pou.

Tags: , , ,

48 Responses to “The Shane Jones issue”

  1. mikenmild (11,777 comments) says:

    Rather than a commission agasint corruption, how about just changing some laws so that ministers no loonger get involved in cases that affect individuals – whether for citizenship, immigration, overseas investment or anything else?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. YesWeDid (1,051 comments) says:

    ‘His claim that an official told him Yan would be executed in China has no basis in reality.’

    DPF, what do you mean by ‘no basis in reality’? That no official told Jones that this could happen or that Yan was not potentially in danger of being executed if found guilty of fraud?

    [DPF: No basis that an official told him that, and no basis that the decision on citizenship would lead to him going to China, and no basis that he is a member of Falun Gong]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. thedavincimode (6,877 comments) says:

    Will this be coming out on Blueray?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete Macaulay (47 comments) says:

    Excellent piece of work DPF. There is a lot more to this than just Shane Jones going against official advice. It is important for us to find out exactly what this multi-identitied crook “Liu” has been up to and whether there is criminal activity. Regardless of that, I wouldn’t do business with him!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Pete George (23,687 comments) says:

    In fairness to Shearer it should be remembered that this all happened well before he became an MP. This has been dumped on him.

    The perception of Shearer’s character suggests he would, in his “in his heart of hearts”, be very uneasy about all this. I think it’s reasonable to give him some time to learn more about it and work through the possibilities and responsibilities.

    But something Shearer has to be careful of – his personality and statements projected a perception of him being better than negative nasty politics, but there’s some doubt about that now due to his subsequent actions and inactions.

    How he deals with this issue will tell us more about whether he has a refreshingly different political heart, or if he’s already succumbed to same old cold calculating clobbering politics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. davidp (3,588 comments) says:

    mikenmild>Rather than a commission agasint corruption, how about just changing some laws so that ministers no loonger get involved in cases that affect individuals – whether for citizenship, immigration, overseas investment or anything else?

    I agree with this completely. There is no point complaining about corruption when you have a process which encourages influence and patronage.

    I would have thought parties would invite such a law change. If you leave a decision to (say) the overseas investment officials or a judge then they take the flak if the decision is right-but-unpopular. It also avoids losing a minister every few years.

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

    “Yan claims to be a member of Falun Gong, and cites this as why he left China. However Falun Gong prohibit gambling, and Yan was the largest customer of the Sky City casino.”

    The Catholic Church prohibit pre-marital sex and the use of contraception but we know not all Catholics follow those rules.

    [DPF: Yes, but this would be like a Catholic Priest acting like Hugh Hefner, and bonking several 20 year old playgirls a night]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    Oops, it looks like I have stumbled into Ian Wishart’s blog by mistake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. David Garrett (7,562 comments) says:

    Very solid piece DPF. The comment above mine by the little boy gives weight to that judgment.

    Thirty years ago a piece like this would have appeared in the Herald. Now we have front page stories – complete with large photo – of a four year old who swallowed a $2 coin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. wreck1080 (3,972 comments) says:

    Why was Dover Samuels this guys mate in the first place? How did they hookup?

    I reckon Samuels has been paid a lot of money by this chinese guy.

    Maoris generally dislike the chinese (as a threat).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. jims_whare (404 comments) says:

    Nice summary DPF – what I would like to know is why a part time blogger like yourself can put this together but the overpaid reporters at the NZ Herald & FF Media can’t?

    Honestly the MSM are quite hopeless at looking into more detail at these murky issues that arise from time to time.
    The only crowd that seem capable of it is the Fair Go team at TVNZ – the rest seem to rely on press releases or copy & paste other stories already published.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Mark (1,493 comments) says:

    There is something inherently grubby about politicians and political parties taking donations from people waiting for determination of their citizenship status. Labour are in this up to their armpits and lets not forget the National Party also appears to have taken a donation from this character. There is also a similar theme to the Banks donation from Dotcom which is currently being investigated. (Maybe Key could take a lesson from Shearer here and stand Banks down as Shearer has been forced to do with Jones).

    It would appear that their is no criminal act here but there are some salutary lessons for both sides of the political spectrum around the taking of political donations. Perhaps restricting political donations to NZ citizens or perhaps go the government funded route.

    NZ has a good reputation thus far on Government corruption but these sort of affairs tend to cast a slightly unsavoury picture when it comes to donations being made to politicians and their respective parties.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. KevinH (1,236 comments) says:

    I see little value in creating an “Independent Commission against Corruption” to examine cases such as this. Existing Government agencies such as the SFO and the Police have sufficient robust processes to deal with cases such as these and introducing another layer of questionable bureaucracy would be pointless because such an agency would be driven by political malcontents.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. trout (944 comments) says:

    Perhaps Dover was looking for a generous benefactor who was prepared to bail out Matauri X.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > His claim that an official told him Yan would be executed in China has no basis in reality

    And you would know this how? You will be well aware that China wanted to revoke Liu’s permanent residency.

    Trying taking your eye patch off – you might see things a little clearer.

    [DPF: There is no evidence that China has expressed a view on his residency]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > what I would like to know is why a part time blogger like yourself can put this together

    Given the wildly speculative nature of the post, I don’t think it would’ve taken more than a few minutes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Nookin (3,467 comments) says:

    “And you would know this how? You will be well aware that China wanted to revoke Liu’s permanent residency. ”

    He would know this because there is no record whatsoever of an official telling him this, which is the issue – not whether he would be executed which is a possible fact never really explored, evidenced only but notes that Jones says he took but cannot produce, and which should have been raised under the refugee provisions of the Immigration Act.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. tknorriss (327 comments) says:

    Ross: “And you would know this how? You will be well aware that China wanted to revoke Liu’s permanent residency.”

    After our conversation yesterday, I can’t believe you can still be so thick.

    Firstly, China can’t revoke permanent residency in NZ.

    Secondly, revoking residency can be a long process with the final step being approval of the minister, anyway. So, there was absolutely no need to approve citizenship on humanitarian grounds.

    Will you please turn your brain on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > He would know this because there is no record whatsoever of an official telling him this

    There is a serious flaw in your reasoning – can you see what it is?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > there was absolutely no need to approve citizenship on humanitarian grounds

    What you are saying is that no application for citzenship has ever been approved on humanitarian grounds?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Colville (2,300 comments) says:

    DPF – is there a link to the fraud charges in China? confirmation of the amount closer to $200 mil ?

    [DPF: Yes, it is the original article in Investigate which uncovered all this. It is online – someone else might post the URL which escapes me]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tknorriss (327 comments) says:

    “What you are saying is that no application for citzenship has ever been approved on humanitarian grounds?”

    What I am saying is there is absolutely no need or reason to approve citizenship on humanitarian grounds.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > What I am saying is there is absolutely no need or reason to approve citizenship on humanitarian grounds.

    And presumably you can show me evidence of that from the official file at the time…given that officials were heavily involved in this case, they would’ve been saying the same thing, right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Just this morning a herald article “Deportees returned with fake IDs ” pointed out that “The whole citizen-vetting system is therefore based on honesty by applicants.”

    this surely must make NZ the destination of choice for every corrupt being in the world who cannot get entry into any other country.

    We then continue to claim that we are the least corrupt.. this is another reason why we need an independent commission against corruption I have already started a petition all it needs is support here is you chance

    http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/petition-for-an-independent-commission-against-corruption/

    such a commission is also tasked with education. when we get our heads out of the sand and acknowledge that not every one is honest and implement policies to combat having to rely on ” trust ” then we will make progress.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. publicwatchdog (2,824 comments) says:

    “What I, and others, have advocated in the past is for an Independent Commission against Corruption, with powers like the SFO has. The NSW have one, which works well. An ICAC could investigate not just breaches of the Crimes Act, but abuses of power in the wider sense – such as Government decisions favouring donors and mates of MPs. They do not have the ability to prosecute but have the standing powers of a royal commission to investigate, report and recommend charges if warranted.”

    That’s good to hear your support, David, for an NZ Independent Commission Against Corruption.

    Some of us have gone further than the ‘advocacy’ stage, and are supporting a petition calling for NZ to establish an NZ Independent Commission Against Corruption.

    You can download a copy of this petition from:
    http://www.anticorruption.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Petition-for-an-independent-commission-against-corruption.pdf

    Would you not agree that NZ has an ongoing problem with the ‘conduct’ of MPs – because they are currently NOT accountable to an enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’?

    ie: NZ MPs ‘make the rules’ for everyone else – including enforceable ‘Codes of Conduct’ – but aren’t subject themselves to the same accountability?

    The same applies to NZ Judges – there is no enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’ for NZ Judges – which is why I have initiated a petition to help sort out this ongoing lack of judicial accountability.

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/PETITION-Code-of-Conduct-for-NZ-Judges-.pdf

    For extensive evidence which confirms, in my considered opinion, why NZ desperately needs an enforceable ‘Code of Conduct’ for NZ Judges, I recommend that you check out http://www.kiwisfirst.co.nz,

    The other problem we have in NZ, with all this ‘lobbying’ – is that we do not yet have a Register of Lobbyists, and a Code of Conduct for Lobbyists.

    Makes you wonder, does it not, how ON EARTH New Zealand can be ‘perceived’ to be the ‘least corrupt country in the world’ (according to the 2011 Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’?)

    That is – until you realise that this Transparency International ‘Corruption Perception Index’ is actually not ‘transparent’ at all, and is based upon the subjective opinions of anonymous business people…..

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’
    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
    Attendee: Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. tknorriss (327 comments) says:

    Ross: “And presumably you can show me evidence of that from the official file at the time…given that officials were heavily involved in this case, they would’ve been saying the same thing, right?”

    The officials were arguing against citizenship. Period. I think they were more concerned about multiple identities, fraud allegations etc, which they probably thought would have outweighed other considerations.

    Anyway, I’m getting a bit sick of dealing with your special kind of stupid. However, perhaps you could answer me, what humanitarian advantage does citizenship give above permanent residency?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Keeping Stock (10,441 comments) says:

    Let’s just get this straight Penny; in your considered opinion, does the Shane Jones/Bill Liu case merit the kind of scrutiny you have been putting John Banks under?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. publicwatchdog (2,824 comments) says:

    “The Serious Fraud Office has told the Auditor-General they have an interest in this case, and may investigate also. I think it is appropriate to state in my opinion Shane Jones has not broken any law, and there is nothing to indicate that he received any personal financial benefit from making the decision he did. This makes this case different to Taito Philip Field, who did receive considerable benefits from his activities as an MP and was charged with corruption and bribery.”

    What about the ‘advocacy’ of John Banks for a German/Finnish national in return for $50,000 allegedly donated to John Banks’ 2010 Auckland Mayoral campaign fund?

    How is that not a direct personal ‘pecuniary gain’ for the ‘Honorable’ John Banks (who is helping to make NZ an international laughing stock via the Kim Dotcom ‘John Banks song, which to date, has had over 145,000 You tube ‘hits’)?

    I’m interested in the application of ‘consistency’?

    Do you agree, that John Banks should be charged with ‘bribery and corruption’ (not as an MP, but as an ‘official’) under s.105 of the Crimes Act ?

    Do you agree, that as a first step that John Banks should be stood down as a Minister, by Prime Minister John Key?

    (What LAW(S) did former National Party MPs Pansy Wong and Richard Worth break, which caused them to lose the confidence of Prime Minister John Key?)

    Do you agree, that John Banks should resign as MP for Epsom?

    Cheers!

    Penny Bright
    Anti-corruption campaigner’
    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Attendee: Australian Public Sector Anti-Corruption Conference 2009
    Attendee: Transparency International Anti-Corruption Conference 2010

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Keeping Stock (10,441 comments) says:

    Don’t try and change the subject Penny…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Penny, who has STOLEN a commodity and shown others how to STEAL also, and threatened to STEAL power when part of the ‘peaceful’ (yeah right) Occupy protest …

    Penny, who is making NZ far more of a laughing stock than John Banks …

    Penny, who – in proclaiming herself a ‘public watchdog’, even though she STEALS … and is thus, in my considered opinion :), unworthy of honour …

    Penny, who is “interested in the application of ‘consistency’” and in “one law for all” – except those laws which apply to people who STEAL

    Have a LOVELY day! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Basically it comes down to the fact of accountability.

    we all need to be accountable for our action and corruption flourishes when this equation exists

    Corruption + Monopoly + discretion – accountability .

    If there is no risk of being held accountable then we can all do what ever we please… what a mess we would be in.

    Penny keep up the good work If every one was as accountable to their actions as we the plebs in society are held accountable to Parking and speeding issues then New Zealand would be a much better place.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    But Penny refuses to be held accountable, ‘anticorruptionnz’. She feels that she is above the law, simply because what she does is – in her mind – ‘right’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Which is rather ironic for a self-proclaimed ‘public watchdog’.

    Who watches the watcher …

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    Don’t worry I am keeping tabs on her and she is doing well

    Its all about the law applying equally to us all.. and the law being enforced equally.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Then you’re not doing a very good job … if you were, you would know that she has done many dodgy things over the years, including STEALING

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    I have never known penny to steal people can say all sort of defamatory things when they hide behind the cloak of anonymity the definition of theft for your information is in the crimes act. I have never known Penny to have committed such an offence.

    It is however an offence to falsely accuse some one knowing that it is false.

    If she has stolen and you know it and have done nothing then you are an accessory after the fact by concealing her crimes.

    So Why don’t you pop off to the local friendly police station and make a complaint specifying what she has stolen when and from whom. .. If you can’t or wont do that kindly don’t defame people with false claims.

    every one has the right to defend claims against them.

    In all fairness Banks should be charged so that the proper authorities can determine his innocence or guilt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    She has STOLEN water, as I am sure you know very well. There is also a video on Youtube where she demonstrates how to do it.

    She also threatened to STEAL power when part of the Occupy protest, although so far as I am aware did not carry this through.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > The officials were arguing against citizenship.

    Well, one official was arguing against it on the basis of the good character test, not because citizenship was unnecessary. As far as I am aware, no official said citizenship was unnecessary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    people can say all sort of defamatory things when they hide behind the cloak of anonymity

    From anticorruptionnz. Oh the irony

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    And at this link, Penny boasts of:

    – giving a practical ‘hands on’ public demonstration on how to remove a water restriction clamp
    – explains that she is a founding member of a so-called ‘Turn On Squad’
    – posts her contact details and offers to help other people remove the clamps

    http://waterpressure.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/press-release-auckland-mayoral-candidate-penny-bright-defends-the-basic-human-right-to-water-by-cutting-off-a-metrowater-water-restriction-clamp-you-tube/

    Dress it up however you want – it is STEALING.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    well do something about it or stand by and condone it

    Penny is doing something that you are not.. she is standing up for what she believes in .

    Putting a video up does not make her a thief. such things are normally tried in court.. or do you support convicting some one on a say so while turning a blind eye to others

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    ^^ anticorruptionnz, I think that could have made a little more sense.

    But speaking of things being tried in a court… What is your view on Vince Seimer?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. graham (2,346 comments) says:

    Putting a video up where she shows how to steal water by actually doing it does not make her a thief? Um, in which fairy tale?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Keeping Stock (10,441 comments) says:

    I have never known penny to steal people can say all sort of defamatory things when they hide behind the cloak of anonymity the definition of theft for your information is in the crimes act. I have never known Penny to have committed such an offence.

    So says anticorruptionz from “behind the cloak of anonymity”; oh; the irony of it all :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    [DPF: There is no evidence that China has expressed a view on his residency]

    “By 2007 Immigration officials recommended Liu’s permanent residency be revoked on grounds that he had allegedly provided false information.” Hmmm and where did Immigration officials get their info from? To say that China hasn’t expressed a view on his residency is nonsense. The Chinese govt wanted him to return to China so they could prosecute him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    [DPF: No basis that an official told him that]

    DIA has admitted that officials may have told Jones about the threat to Liu’s life…how you get a denial out of that is anyone’s guess.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. bhudson (4,741 comments) says:

    The Chinese govt wanted him to return to China so they could prosecute him.

    Are you sure about that ross69? I thought the party line was that they wanted him back so they could harvest his organs.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Michael Mckee (1,091 comments) says:

    Why should David Sheerer Put Labour MP in front of any of the questions?
    I would have thought if any MP or Minister had behaved this way then they would be sacked by everyone no matter their party.

    Clearly David Sheerer isn’t the “clean new start” he has been billed as is he?
    Cunliffe’s hands are also dirty apparently.
    The only one coming out clean on it is Robertson.

    No, I won’t even consider voting Labour until the whole front row is out of Parliament, iffy the lot of them.

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