Horan expelled from NZ First

December 4th, 2012 at 4:53 pm by David Farrar

Winston Peters announced today to the House:

In recent weeks, a number of allegations had been made against Mr Horan, most of which arise from a family matter. The allegations are of a nature that requires that they should be treated seriously. Accordingly, I requested from the original complainant and those associated with him evidence to support their allegations. I also instructed Mr Horan to give every priority to resolving this family matter, so that I could be assured that those allegations were without foundation. Until a few days ago, we had not been furnished with any evidentiary material from any of the parties in this dispute. However, substantive material has now come into my possession, some as recent as 2.15 p.m. this afternoon. The information we have received leaves me in a position where I have no confidence in Mr Horan’s ability to continue as a member of Parliament, and he will be expelled from the New Zealand First caucus forthwith. Mr Horan has a duty, I believe, to resign as a member of Parliament. Lastly, this is a bitterly regrettable situation, but we had to place our decision on the public record as soon as we were in a position to make it.

It is good to see Winston holding his MPs to a higher standard than he held himself to. I understand that when the allegations were put to Horan, he simply sat in a room and held up a no sign to Winstons’s questions :-)

Okay, being more serious I do give credit to Winston for his handling of this. As ACT did with Donna Awatere-Huata, he investigated serious allegations and as no satisfactory answers could be given, moved to expel the MP from the party.

It stands in stark contrast to the shameful behaviour of Labour over Taito Philip Field, where they not only refused to take action, but actively defended him.

Of course Winston did hand pick Horan to be his successor in Tauranga, and the episode overall is not positive for NZ First. And Peters did know about the allegations for a couple of months, before acting on them. However again overall I say Peters has handled this issue pretty well.

Credit also goes to Tony Wall and the Sunday Star-Times who broke the story. On the basis of what was published I thought the story was premature and should have waited for the forensic accounant report . But they obviously had confidence that the allegations were substantive, and it appears they are at least substantive enough for Peters to expel Horan.  They made the call, and got it right.

On the basis of what has been reported, the behaviour is allegedly criminal. Hence why Peters spoke under parliamentary privilege. And in terms of the law Horan is innocent until proven guilty. But the fact he has been unable to provide evidence to convince Peters does suggest he has real problems in the future.

Horan is now an Independent List MP. Unless he is charged and convicted of an offence that has a maximum penalty of over two years jail, he will remain an MP until he resigns. He says he is staying for now, but I suspect he will find Parliament a very lonely and unfriendly place if he does.

Of course if he can clear his name, and prove he has done nothing wrong, then he may have a future. But for NZ First to expel him suggests they are convinced of serious wrong doing.

Tags: ,

54 Responses to “Horan expelled from NZ First”

  1. George Patton (353 comments) says:

    Can’t believe I’m saying this, but Winston has acted promptly and efficiently here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Brad (75 comments) says:

    John Key could learn a thing or two from Winston, since Banks remains in his coalition

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Manolo (13,517 comments) says:

    There is, after all, honour among thieves.
    Very true words about Banks, who should’ve been sacked by Smile-and-wave.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,606 comments) says:

    Oh, the irony.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. bc (1,365 comments) says:

    Agree George, Brad & Manolo

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. MikeG (425 comments) says:

    It is good to see Winston holding his MPs to a higher standard than John Key holds his Ministers to.

    It stands in stark contrast to the shameful behaviour of National over John Banks, where John Key not only refused to remove his Ministerial portfolios, but deliberately refused to read Police reports.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. davidp (3,575 comments) says:

    >It stands in stark contrast to the shameful behaviour of Labour over Taito Philip Field, where they not only refused to take action, but actively defended him.

    Or the Darren Hughes affair, where Labour dicked around for weeks before he went.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. andrewb3 (1 comment) says:

    I wonder what way he will vote now? I know zero about this guy, left leaning right leaning? Will this sure up Nat bills passing through Parliament?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. sweetd (125 comments) says:

    So, if Winston was aware of this before, why did he wait to act till it was made known in the news?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    Horan’s lawyer says that Horan was given no indication the NZ First’s caucus was meeting to expel him, and not has he been shown the documents referred to in Peters’ statement this afternoon. He does seem to have been denied any natural justice.

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

    Winnie, where’s that $158000?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Reid (16,218 comments) says:

    No this is bullshit. Peters is doing it only because he doesn’t want mud to stick to NZF. He’s based it on the allegations made by the person in Horan’s family whose made the allegations but according to Horan’s lawyer on Checkpoint, the first Horan knew of his expulsion was when he read it on Stuff this arvo and the last time he spoke to Peters was last night.

    In other words Horan has been given no chance to answer the allegations, he doesn’t know what Peters has been shown and neither does his lawyer.

    Peters has violated natural justice for political purposes, and this gives Horan a lot of ammunition. As I said on the other thread, Peters is very vulnerable to counter-accusations contrasting his own behaviour on all sorts of ethical points over the years and IMO Horan in coming months will be able to tap into plenty of people who have a vested interest in discrediting Peters, such as Owen Glenn, who can potentially provide him with plenty of information and resources.

    Horan’s ease in front of the camera will hopefully stand him in good stead in this coming battle, and his lack of political nous will hopefully be bolstered from the advice given by the vast numbers of current and recent past MPs who would like nothing better than to see the old lion led out the back and put down, hoisted by his own petard.

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

    NZ first has just got another 0.5% higher than they would have in 2014 if they hadnt have done this. Smart move. He can now rail against the others in parliament from the high ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. bringbackdemocracy (423 comments) says:

    Horan was the highest polling candidate for NZ Farce in the last election.
    He can claim he has more right to be an MP than his caucus clowns.

    Maybe Winston’s newfound views on financial probity will mean he will repay the $158,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    @Keeping Stock 5:37 pm

    Politics isn’t about natural justice – it is about whether you have the confidence of your Leader(s) and caucus. Just ask Richard Worth.

    In saying that I am in no way defending Peters for his past behaviour over dodgy donations, but I think he handled this well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    Oh come on Pauleastbay, public money is fair game, just lying round waiting for an MP to soak it up using a bogus polling company or a leader to overspend in an election campaign.

    It’s not like private money, where people have to work hard to earn it or anything, so it’s perfectly justifiable to sack an MP if there’s a whiff of suspicion he’s taken private money rightfully the property of another family member, but equally right to hang on to an MP who invents Antoinette Back to hide behind, or even to stay in office oneself and not repay the taxpayer.

    See, that’s why National once made him Treasurer, because he understands distinction like that which elude us less educated types.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Keeping Stock (10,265 comments) says:

    Point taken toad, but you’d think that Peters would have at least given Horan a chance to answer the latest allegation (the 2.15pm one). And Gower reckons Peters made the statement under parliamentary privilege so that Horan wouldn’t be able to sue him for possible defamation if it proves to be wrong.

    For one that expects everyone else to comply to the highest ethical standards, Peters is pretty good at game-playing, and screwing a man’s reputation. At least Key had the guts to tell Worth face-to-face when he kicked him out of Cabinet; Peters has done it by proxy.

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

    Sorry Rex, I’ll pull my head in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. burt (8,198 comments) says:

    Brendan … All you needed was a big “NO” sign…. WTF was so difficult about that ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. tvb (4,322 comments) says:

    But in Phillip Field’s case he has a strong political following in a key constancy and Labour was hanging by a thread and every vote including Field’s counted. I thought Helen Clark handled her position with great skill despite the huge risks. The Horan decision is much easier. Nothing rests upon it so Winston can take the high moral ground.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. m@tt (630 comments) says:

    “At least Key had the guts to tell Worth face-to-face when he kicked him out of Cabinet; Peters has done it by proxy.”
    If Key had any guts at all Banks would be history. Don’t delude yourself in to thinking that Key is different to any other MP, he’ll only do what he thinks is best to keep him in a position of power.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tvb (4,322 comments) says:

    And Key has a DUTY to hold his Government together whatever it takes including being soft on Banks. You just hope a scandal tainted MP is a list MP and they can hopefully be forced out. But no Prime Minister is going to risk the stability of the Government on a one vote majority if an MP is a bit shady or economical with the truth. Banks is safe and one just hopes it does not taint the Government too much. Dealing with Horan is much easier.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. George Patton (353 comments) says:

    From the Herald:

    (Peters) “He said he had used parliamentary privilege to make his statement because “I am not going to be subject to people spraying defamation writs that cost you a fortune, no matter how correct you might be or not and that is used to muzzle people. I did not wish to expose myself to that.”

    Refreshingly honest and to the point.

    I suspect the big difference between Banks and Horan is that Banks’ issues involved a grey area in a badly written inconsequential law (inconsequential because Banks lost, rather than politically profited from any donation), which Banks and or his agent handled poorly, whereas Horan’s activities are more clearly defined by pecuniary gain and theft laws.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Rex Widerstrom (5,346 comments) says:

    That’s okay Pauleastbay. Tomorrow’s economics lesson is titled “Why the Spencer Trust is like Schroedigers Cat: How it’s existence can be denied while at the same time it is advanced as a perfectly legitimate repository for donations to the party”. There’ll be a test afterwards.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Viking2 (11,367 comments) says:

    Besides, The Nats don’t own Banks.
    He is his one man Party much like Dunne and without both the Nats are stuffed unless they then did a deal with Winston to remain in Govt.
    Problem with that is that would require giving the rascist party of super suckers the boot.

    Seems to me Winston holds more than a few cards.

    Luv to see the Nats squirm.
    And remember even Key has said he could work with Winston if he had to.

    Forget Wuzzel for Finance. Much as the Nats chew occasionally on a dead rat they would do it if it meant staying in power.

    All good fun. :lol: :lol:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Griff (7,325 comments) says:

    Soooo right v2
    the chance of whine in bed with the greens and or the maori Palava is 0
    Whine and the foreign affairs portfolio again and another 3 years of labor lite

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. hj (6,836 comments) says:

    My instincts were correct:

    hj (3,244) Says:
    November 27th, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    Winston will sack Horan if he is guilty. My guess is that he is and that is why DPF is being so fair (now): he has NZ First in the cross hairs.
    National is opposed to NZ First because they are a Flog of NZ party:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10850092
    http://queencitylaw.rtrk.com.au/?scid=161768&kw=6236901&pub_cr_id=16956781644

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. hj (6,836 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (2,939) Says:
    December 4th, 2012 at 5:40 pm

    Winnie, where’s that $158000?
    ……………………………………………………………..

    So who backs National? If the productivity Commission had nothing to hide why did they make the terms of inquiry: • ” relatively uncontroversial given the desire to establish broad political support for the Commission”

    MEDIA RELEASE
    11 August, 2011
    Land supply, taxes and levies prohibiting home ownership
    The supply of land and basic infrastructure, along with taxes, levies and charges imposed on the
    housing supply chain are pushing up the cost of home ownership, according to Property Council New
    Zealand.
    Property Council has welcomed the findings of a Productivity Commission report on housing
    affordability, but argues the high costs of residential property development are passed on to the
    consumer, affecting the affordability of housing.
    http://www.propertynz.co.nz/news.asp?pageID=2145860509&RefID=2141740868
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/…/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. wat dabney (3,758 comments) says:

    hj is an NZ First supporter.

    Why am I not surprised.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. publicwatchdog (2,516 comments) says:

    What is NZ Prime Minister John Key going to do about the arguably ‘Not-So-Honorable’ John Banks, the Minister for Small Business, and Regulatory Reform — and Associate Minister for Education, and Commerce, when he appears, (as I understand it) in the Wellington District Court on Tuesday 11 December 2012 at 1.45pm – facing a private prosecution for alleged electoral fraud?

    ( CRN: 12085501327 – the charge relating to the filing of a false return.)

    http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2001/0035/latest/DLM94799.html

    134 False return

    (1)Every candidate commits an offence who transmits a return of electoral expenses knowing that it is false in any material particular, and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years or to a fine not exceeding $10,000.
    ____________________________________________________________________________________________

    Is the arguably ‘Not-So-Honorable’ John Banks, the Minister for Small Business, and Regulatory Reform — and Associate Minister for Education, and Commerce, going to be, at the very least, ‘stood down’ as a Minister, by National Prime Minister John Key?

    If not – why not?

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. David Garrett (6,971 comments) says:

    I wouldn’t appear there if I were you Penny…someone might invoke another Act on you…one that involves you being forcibly taken to a place of treatment and having some more of that nice orange tasting stuff…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    tvb@6.23pm has it summed up correctly. PMs will excuse or ignore any sort of behaviour if sacking the offender would jeopardise their remaining in power. So, Key has his Banks problem as Clark had her Field problem. Winston can afford to look tough on Horan, as he was on Laws, because there is stuff all riding on it. When did a party leader last get rid of someone for the sake of principle, when observing that principle cost power?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (6,971 comments) says:

    Peters is full of it…While he might be able to expel Horan from caucus – I imagine their caucus rules give Peters unlimited power – that is not at all the same thing as expelling him from the party. So first up, those “experts” here equating the two are wrong. The two organs are very different, and different rules apply.

    Secondly, there is precedent – provided by the Donna Awatere affair in ACT – which says that members of parties can seek judicial review of decisions which purport to expell them. And while natural justice probably doesn’t have any relevance to what happened in their caucus, it most definitely does when it comes to the party itself – especially if the “party” is also an incorporated society.

    Peters can of course make a breach of privilege complaint about Horan…which would be kind of ironic given what a past Privileges Committee said about him….

    This affair has a lot of surprises in store yet…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Although the Privileges Committee is really just another mechanism controlled by the PM of the day, so the fate of any (as yet hypothetical) complaint there is anybody’s guess as it will depend on the timing and the state of play in terms of National wanting to be able to cuddle up with Winston after the next election.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. publicwatchdog (2,516 comments) says:

    Is that truly the best you can do David Garrett?

    :)

    Of course – you were an ACT MP – and the NZ public have learned that ACT’s ‘one law for all’ isn’t actually supposed to apply to ACT Party MPs?

    Particularly ACT Party ‘Leaders’?

    If a District Court Judge decided to issue a witness summons for the arguably ‘Not-So-Honorable’ John Banks, the Minister for Small Business, and Regulatory Reform — and Associate Minister for Education, and Commerce, to appear in Court on Tuesday 11 December 2012, at 1.45pm, then shouldn’t he at least have to stand down as a Minister?

    Seems there IS a ‘case to answer’?

    Oh yes – that’s right.

    This MINORITY National Government has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

    So – ‘shonky’ John Key will continue to defend the indefensible ‘dodgy’ John Banks?

    We shall see……………………..

    Kind regards,

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgone.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. graham (2,328 comments) says:

    Bit of a laugh, Penny calling someone else “Not-So-Honorable” and “dodgy” when Penny has been shown to be lacking any sort of honour, and it is well known that some of her actions are decidedly dodgy (how is the “Occupy” movement these days, Penny – spoken to them recently have you?)

    For that matter, bit of a laugh that Penny insists on styling herself as an “Anti-corruption campaigner” when we all know just how corrupt Penny Bright actually is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Warren Murray (299 comments) says:

    Until Brendan gives his vote to another party, in his absence, the expulsion increases the Government’s majority by one. if he was to give it to a government party, it would increase its majority by two. Wouldn’t it be ironic, if he joined the Act or United parties, it would double their size in Parliament and increase their support funding at NZF’s expense. In a finely balanced Parliament as we have, with two years to go before the election Brendan’s vote has some value.

    David G, i think it unlikely Brendan would challenge the party’s decision, firstly because, unlike Donna, the expulsion, by itself, wont force him to vacate his seat, and perhaps more simply, that would probably involve him in some expense which I suspect he cant afford. sitting tight like Phillip Field might be best for him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. publicwatchdog (2,516 comments) says:

    “when we all know just how corrupt Penny Bright actually is.”

    That is a highly defamatory statement Graham.

    Please be reminded of s.25 of the NZ Defamation Act and retract that above-mentioned statement forthwith.

    http://www.legislation.co.nz/act/public/1992/0105/latest/DLM281239.html

    25 Retraction or reply

    (1)Any person who claims to have been defamed by any matter published in a news medium may, not later than 5 working days after that person becomes aware of the publication of that matter in that news medium, request the person who was responsible for the publication of that matter to publish, in the same medium as the publication complained of, with substantially similar prominence, and without undue delay,—

    (a)a retraction of the matter in so far as it includes or consists of statements of fact; or

    (b)a reasonable reply.

    (2)Where, in response to a request made under subsection (1), a person agrees to publish a retraction or a reply, that person shall also offer to pay to the person who made the request (in this subsection referred to as the requester),—

    (a)where it is agreed to publish a reply, the cost of publishing that reply; and

    (b)the solicitor and client costs incurred by the requester in connection with the publication of the retraction or reply; and

    (c)all other expenses reasonably incurred by the requester in connection with the publication complained of; and

    (d)compensation for any pecuniary loss suffered by the requester as a direct result of the publication complained of.

    (3)In this section, reply means a statement of explanation or rebuttal, or of both explanation and rebuttal.

    Penny Bright
    ‘Anti-corruption campaigner’

    http://www.dodgyjohnhasgoen.com

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Reid (16,218 comments) says:

    while natural justice probably doesn’t have any relevance to what happened in their caucus, it most definitely does when it comes to the party itself – especially if the “party” is also an incorporated society.

    Arguable David. It’s not where the battle will be won, which is in the court of Public Opinion which hinges on the evidence which none of us have yet seen, but Horan’s QC Paul Mabey might decide to make it into a test case. After all, if you aren’t entitled to natural justice processes in the caucus processes engaged in expelling a duly elected Member of a political party, then where should you be entitled to expect it? It’s a very interesting constitutional argument precisely because it butts the law up against the rights of Parliament.

    Secondly I just bet as I said above, Peters’ many enemies some of whom have lots of cash and spare time on their hands and many of whom would just love to see Peters pounded into the dust, might discretely and unseen line up behind this which would solve Horan’s resourcing problems and provide a very significant media platform for re-hashing some old ground which Peters might wish had been long dead and buried.

    I’m not sure there’ll be lots of surprises for us – I think most of us on this blog know who Peters is. But the sheeple may be very surprised as to what comes out of this.

    OTOH Horan might just fade into the background as a minor player on the grand stage who was just a small supernova in early December, 2012.

    This may happen, who knows. I hope it doesn’t because Peters needs to pay, for what he’s done, dating back to his Prima Donna resignation from the Maori Affairs portfolio in Bolger’s 1st Cabinet. That’s when he proved by his actions he was destructive not constructive and he has been on that path ever since.

    If he was in private practice somewhere I wouldn’t mind, but he, by his own choice, preens and prances on the national stage, with our money, and his actions to me since way back when he did that, need to be held to account.

    Of course I’m not holding my breath. I’m not naive. I’m merely hoping against hope that finally, this little prick will be exposed to the sheeple for who he always has been.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. labrator (1,897 comments) says:

    If not – why not?

    Helen set the precedent, oh and private prosecutions are a bit lame.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. labrator (1,897 comments) says:

    This MINORITY National Government has only 59 out of 121 MPs.

    Lol, when exactly was there a MAJORITY government Penny? That’s why it’s called a coalition.

    Please be reminded of s.25 of the NZ Defamation Act and retract that above-mentioned statement forthwith.

    People are actually entitled to their opinion, amazing aye. A bit like you calling John dodgy. Oh and to be defamed, you actually have to have a reputation that could be damaged. I’d hesitate to suggest to you that your reputation couldn’t actually get any lower.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. gump (1,617 comments) says:

    The response from Winston Peters does make sense when you think about it.

    Winston’s primary support base is old age pensioners – so he can’t be seen to support an MP who has stolen from an old age pensioner (theft from bank accounts is a common concern in the OAP community).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hj (6,836 comments) says:

    gump says:

    “Winston’s primary support base is old age pensioners”
    ……….
    and people opposed to foreigners pushing up house prices plus the general threat to the NZ way of life through importing the worlds over population (coast watch and all that….).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Liberty (257 comments) says:

    HJ if you want to be pedantic
    Winston support base
    Old age pensioners and rednecks.
    NZF would turn NZ into Alabama of the south pacific.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. graham (2,328 comments) says:

    Hmmm. I notice, Penny, that you don’t complain about my comments that you have been shown to be lacking any sort of honour, and it is well known that some of your actions are decidedly dodgy. I can only assume that you agree with me on those points.

    The point that you lack any sort of honour is ably demonstrated by one of your more recent outings, where you picketed a charity lunch that was aiming to raise money for a new children’s ward at Waitakere hospital, solely to make a point about John Key. So blinded are you by your irrational hatred of John Key.

    As to the other matter of corruption … hmm, shall I, shan’t I? Tell ya what, Penny, just because it’s you:

    I retract that above-mentioned statement forthwith.

    Happy? :)

    Now that I have your attention – when are you going to fulfill your end of the bargain we made some months ago and answer some simple questions? Do you have enough “honour” to do that Penny?

    Not holding my breath.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. kiwi in america (2,495 comments) says:

    There’s two separate angles here – what has happened with respect to the law and what has happened with respect to politics. The tactics and strategies for each angle are quite different. Peters is managing the political risk while Horan must contend with whether there has been any criminal behaviour. What little is out there in the public arena strikes me as a messy internal family feud over money. In the middle you have an aging matriarch with substantial prize winnings and various half siblings who likely fell in and out of favour with the mother with the money. Horan likely made withdrawals under an arrangement approved by the mother but later rescinded whether in a legally binding manner via a power of attorney or more likely verbally in the midst of the shifting sands of who got on with who and who was Mum’s favourite (and thus entitled to her largesse).

    If there is anything criminal then the police undoubtedly will be involved. Usually these things become a ‘he says – she says’ mess with little definitive evidence of criminal wrong doing and it gets thrashed out in civil law suits. If Horan is charged with any criminal offences then Peters’ action will be largely vindicated. If it turns into a messy civil fight amongst greedy siblings, whilst politically we can all agree why Peters would want to cauterize any weeping sore from a media drip feed of the Horan family dirty laundry, the manner in which he has chosen to dispatch Horan may come back to bite him. If Horan digs in and refuses to resign he may be able to cause Winston considerable political embarrassment. As others have pointed out, there is plenty of ammo to fire at Peters. Peters is brazen enought to think that the public have entirely forgotten his 2008 antics. I’m not so sure that Owen Glenn or the Suminovich family have ever forgotten.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. kiwi in america (2,495 comments) says:

    Its easy to equate the Key – Banks situation with the Clark – Field situation but the two matters have material differences that mark the former as a far less serious ‘turning a blind eye’ incident. Banks’ sins were committed when he was the Mayor of Auckland – a political life entirely separate in time and space from his role as a Minister in Key’s Cabinet under the National ACT coalition agreement. Banks was also never charged with any offences despite the police investigating the matter. Furthermore Banks is a member of an entirely separate party to National and so the influence John Key has is commensurately far less than he has over his own MPs. Politically messy for sure but on non partisan neutral a scale of 1 to 10 of seriousness (as opposed to the scale used by the left tilting media and other supporters of left leaning parties) it would rank a 5 or 6.

    Field committed criminal offences for which he was charged, tried and prosecuted by a jury in a lengthy trial where he could defend his claimed innocence. The offences were committed whilst Field was a Labour MP and a Minister in the Clark government (outside Cabinet). Whilst Key accepted Banks’ verbal assurances that are likely to be untrue (with respect to Kim Dotcom), Clark and Cullen actively defended Field until his trial by stating that he was guilty of nothing more than helping his constituents. On the ‘turning a blind eye’ scale it is a 10 out of 10.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    Yes if Horan is guilty of criminal wrongdoing, Winston was wise.

    But if he wasn’t he just made an enemy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. jims_whare (403 comments) says:

    The questions that arise from the limited info available are these:

    1 Why did Horan see fit to borrow money from his dying mother? He has a high paying job as an MP and previously as a broadcaster for what reason did he see fit to borrow this money?

    2 How much was this loan? When was it drawn down? Were there any loan documents prepared? what were the repayment schedules required to be?

    3 If this ‘loan’ was above board why did his mum act prior to her death to change her will & executor and require her new executor to seek repayment of money loaned or gained by misadventure?

    4 If this loan was above board why has the new executor seen fit to employ forensic accountants to analyse the bank accounts? For a single, simple loan this would not be necessary – however if the ‘loan’was informal or unapproved (and drawn down in multiple ATM withdrawals etc.) then this analysis would be necessary in order to get a better picture of what occurred.

    5 Mr Horan’s repayments. If his ‘loan’from his mum was above board he would be making regular repayments on a regular basis. However if his ‘loan’was not authorised then the accounts would show no repayments at all until perhaps the change of executor and the application of sunlight after which the repayments would be coming in very fast indeed as a butt covering exercise. Which scenario occurred?

    6 What were the roles of Mr Horan and his sister during this time? Who had access to their mum’s bank accounts? Is it possible to follow up who made which withdrawals at which time?
    It appears from the amendment to the will that their mum was concerned that either or both of her children had some responsibility for any missing money.

    7 Power of Attorney. What was the background and purpose for Mr Horan’s sister invoking this power? Why did their mum fight against this invoking if it was all above board? More importantly what occurred within the bank accounts during the period this power was invoked and the successful regaining of her affairs several days later?

    8 Urgent operation. There was a suggestion money was withdrawn to pay for an urgent operation. Was there any medical background to this operation’? Did the operation occur? Was the money withdrawn subsequently refunded to the bank account?

    9 Alleged purchase of a new car? Did this happen? How much did it cost? Who made the transaction that paid for the car? Who’s name is the car in? Why would a terminally ill elderly lady (presumably with limited mobility) require a brand new car?
    Who has been using the car during this time and subsequent to their mum’s death?

    Obviously more questions arise but they are the basic ones that spring to mind

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Mobile Michael (442 comments) says:

    @David Garrett – the injunction was issued to prevent Prebble writing to the Speaker advising that Awatere-Huata had met the tests in the Electoral (Integrity) Act and that he was using its provisions to force her resignation from Parliament. While the expulsion from Caucus was canvassed during the hearing it was found to be procedually fair, it was Awatere-Huata’s idiotic refusal to renew her party membership that condemned her.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. mikenmild (11,246 comments) says:

    Of course there was the delicious irony of seeing Act, which had bitterly opposed the electoral integrity legislation, using it against their own renegade MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. hj (6,836 comments) says:

    Liberty (89) Says:

    NZF would turn NZ into Alabama of the south pacific.
    ………………………….
    How about Japan, China, India….. too redneck and mono cultural?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Dave Mann (1,203 comments) says:

    Given that this Horan character has failed to convince the leader of his party of his honesty or morality, and given that he was elected on the NZF list, logically he should be expelled from PARLIAMENT and not be able to remain an MP… surely?

    There is something seriously wrong with our political system that this turkey can remain in our parliament. He owes his job to his luck on the party list and he has no moral right to be an MP if he fails to account for his honesty and bona files to that party.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. ChardonnayGuy (1,197 comments) says:

    Oh happy day. Yet another unelected microparty blossoms in Parliament. And what an excellent case for the reintroduction of the Electoral Integrity Act.

    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.