Kiwiblog

One News revealed tonight that Winston Peters aggressively pushed for Owen Glenn to be appointed Consul to Monaco, despite denying he did so. The Government has refused for eight months to release this information, but finally the Ombudsman forced it out of them.

The documents show Peters on multiple occassions asked for progress and was reported to be testy that MFAT were taking so long to do it. Watch the video for the full details. MFAT concluded:

A report prepared in November concluded that the position was marginal and if it did go ahead they recommended another candidate named Franco Repetto, saying he lived in Monaco full time while Glenn was there just three months a year.

Now it has been established that Winston Peters knew about the donation when it was made in 2005. It was also cleared with Mike Williams at the time, and Helen Clark knew about it either also at the time, or at the latest in February 2008.

Clark sat on this info for at least six months, claiming not to know if it was true. This is despite the fact she would have been aware that Peters had been aggressively pushing for Glenn to be appointed Consul.

Did Clark notify the Cabinet Secretary or the MFAT CEO about the (then alleged) donation from Glenn to Peters? Did she tell them that Owen Glenn had confirmed to her he made a donation?

Clark’s ethics are amazing. She is aghast at Gerry Brownlee having 1,000 shares in Contact Energy several years ago, yet she has no problem with her Foreign Affairs Minister receiving $100,000 donations from individuals and then aggressively pushing to give them a diplomatic appointment.

This is not an isolated case. Clark knows that the Vela Family have donated around $250,000 to NZ First and indeed $40,000 to Peters personally (paying off the Clarkson debt). And she knows that Peters forced her Government to agree to very generous funding of the racing industry, against advice of officials.

And what is her response to this? Totally unconcerned. She keeps paying Winston a Ministerial salary even though he won’t even front up to a debate on foreign policy. She says she’ll happily work with him after the election, so long as it increases her chances of desperately clinging to power.

The hypocrisy of her suggesting Peter Dunne should relinquish a Ministerial warrant for expressing a post-election coalition preference, while keeping Winston on despite multiple proven lies, false evidence and basically corrupt behaviour.

This is Helen Clark’s world. If you are willing to vote for her to remain Prime Minister, she will turn a blind eye to any amount of misdeeds or worse. Hence in her mind there is nothing wrong with calling for Peter Dunne to resign his warrant, but keeping Winston Peters on.

This reinforces for me why we need an Independent Commission against Corruption. She covered up over Taito Philip Field with an inquiry given no powers. She kept quiet for months about Winston, and the latest stuff with Shane Jones is being dealt with by way of a Departmental inquiry which by definition can not investigate the Ministers involved.

There are multiple stories from the Press Conference. First on Stuff re Helen Clark:

“She’s very self serving … I am expendable. I wouldn’t want them in the trenches next to me. It’s not the money, its the way you are treated, then you turn the dogs on me … toothless dogs.”

The last straw would have been Mallard and Cullen casting doubts on his mental fitness.

He said Mr Williams visited him on his luxury yacht off the French coast in mid-year.

Mr Williams asked him for a job as an “administrator”, he said.

Mr Williams told him that he was a good administrator and he was “articulate”.

Mr Glenn turned him down.

But Mike is earning almost $200,000 a year from his board appointments. Why would he need a job?

And who paid for his trip to Europe to target donors? Did taxpayer money fund it through one of his boards?

Glenn described Labour Party chairman Mike Williams as a liar and a bagman for the party.

“Mr Williams is wrestling with the truth,” he has told a press conference.

It is harsh to call someone a liar, but Mike Williams has a track record. He told nine lies on Agenda about what he said at the Labour Party Conference. If you are willing to lie about what you said in front of 500 people, why wouldnt you lie about what was said at a private lunch?

In another story, Williams says:

Mr Williams said he did not discuss the donation with Prime Minister Helen Clark.

“There is never any discussion between me and Helen Clark about any political donations except those that are public.”

Now I could accept this is true for donations to your own party. The two big parties do try and shelter the leaders from this. But it would be quite another matter concerning a donation to an allied party. You see the question being asked isn’t one of money as much as one of relationships. What Glenn wanted to know is does helping Winston help Labour. Now that is very much a question for the political wing, and the Leader. And Glenn has testified that Williams and Clark speak several times a day.

How credible is it that Williams would not have mentioned to Clark in 2005, that Glenn was interested in donating to Winston?

Last night he disputed Mr Glenn’s version of events. “Mr Glenn asked me [in December 2005] whether I thought Mr Peters had any chance of winning the Tauranga petition and I said that I thought he did.

“I have no recollection of being asked or offering any comment on whether or not Mr Glenn should provide financial assistance to Mr Peters, and I certainly did not discuss that possibility with anyone else.”

Well the meal with Williams took place immediately before Glenn phoned Peters to say okay. Regardless of what Williams claims (and he is a proven liar) Glenn obviously placed huge significance on checking with Williams, and was crystal clear that he only donated because Williams said it would be helpful.

The Herald has a collection of quotes from Glenn:

“I don’t think people with forgetful memories should be Minister of Foreign Affairs.”

To be fair to Winston, I don’t think his memory is in any way flawed.

“I think people in elected positions and privileged positions need to act ethically and be trusted and I doubt he can be.”

Except with Helen, still hanging on waiting for the innocent explanation. Never mind she has known the truth for six months and could have had the facts established back in February with a phone call.

On Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen

“He’s a bully. I don’t have a warm and fuzzy feeling about him. He’s not the sort of guy I’d want to spend a weekend with on an island but he’s just following orders.”

What can one say.

And then the main Herald story:

Mr Glenn said by February this year the Prime Minister was fully aware of his donation to Winston Peters.

When asked if Helen Clark knew what the money was used for Mr Glenn said “she already knew that, Mike Williams would have told her”.

Asked what he thought of the Prime Minister, he described her as “very self-serving”, while Mike Williams, he said, “wrestles with the truth” .

And it is a myth that the PM had no choice but to accept Winston’s word. Says who? She could have asked Glenn to substantiate his claim he donated to Peters. He could have done so within hours. The fact is she chose deliberately not to inquire further, because she knew what the answer would be.

Basically Clark’s position is that she does not mind having a Minister who she is almost certain has lied to her, she just doesn’t want to have it proven he lied to her. So she just sat on it and said and did nothing.

Mr Glenn said he decided to fight back after a New Zealand First MP called him a liar in Parliament.

He said prior to being attacked, he would have “slid away quietly”

This morning he told Radio New Zealand that Labour might not have been in government without his $500,000 donation to it; “and here they are attacking me, and frankly attacking my credibility and my integrity.”

Mr Glenn said the Prime Minister had behaved out of self interest and wanted to keep Mr Peters on-side to get legislation through “and I was expendable”.

They have done more than attack his integrity and credibility. They attacked his mental sanity through backroom whispers to journalists.

And finally we have Monaco:

Earlier today, Owen Glenn told Radio New Zealand he was vetted for the position of honorary consul to Monaco and that Winston Peters supported his bid.

Mr Glenn said he had met New Zealand’s ambassador to France Sarah Dennis in Paris at her invitation where she had told him she was vetting him for the position.

“I said OK what’s your decision, she said `you seem to be alright”‘, Mr Glenn said.

In February Mr Peters rang him the day he was leaving for a trip to South Africa, Mr Glenn said. Mr Glenn was in Raglan at the time and says he has a witness to the call.

“He (Mr Peters) said; `I’m still supporting this, I want to push it through, I need a letter from you confirming that you are going to live in Monaco…”

And this is where Clark and Peters have both made huge errors of judgement. Helen Clark knew that Owen Glenn had donated to Winston Peters – he had told her. Winston was pushing for his appointment within Government. MFAT staff were vetting Glenn. And Clark did not disclose the donation to anyone – to MFAT. to the Cabinet Secretary, to the Electoral Commission, to her own colleagues who sign off on appointments, to the Registrar of the Register of Pecuniaryinary Interests. That was a huge conflict of interest. Clark as PM is meant to uphold the integrity of Government, and instead she stayed silent and set a new low.

The NZ Herald says this week will see a focus on the PM’s knowledge of the Owen Glenn donation.

The more I think about it, the more appalling it is that she said or did nothing. Let us first dispose of her claims that she had no choice but to accept Peters’ word.

1. The convention of accepting the word of an MP, only applies in the House itself. There is no such convention in the wider political sphere.
2. More importantly, accepting someone’s word only applies up until there is evidence which contradicts that word. The direct testimony of Owen Glenn that he donated $100,000 to assist Winston Peters is evidence.
3. In previous cases where the evidence contradicts what the Minister says, Clark has asked to examine the evidence. She had her staff examine media tapes of Benson-Pope’s interviews to determine he had lied, and sacked him.
4. This was not a case where one had to accept the word of Glenn over Peters or vice versa. A donation is a provable fact and she could have gained absolute proof with a single phone call.
5. She could have urged Peters to contact Glenn to find out why he thinks he donated. That would be the 100% logical thing to do, unless you suspected Glenn was right and Peters was lying.

Now let us look at all the things one may have expected an ethical Prime Minister to do. Did she do any of the below?

1. Seek legal advice from the Cabinet Secretary or the Solictor-General as to whether she had an obligation to disclose Glenn’s revelation that he had donated $100,000 to assist Peters.
2. Inform the Electoral Commission that she has information which warrants investigation as to the accuracy of NZ First’s 2005 return. OR
3. Inform the Registrar of MPs Pecuniary Interests that she has information which warrants investigation as to the accuracy of Winston Peters’ 2005 return.
4. Inform the Secretary of Foreign Affairs that Owen Glenn had told her that he had donated $100,000 to assist the Foreign Minister, and that this created a conflict of interest for Peters in determining whether or not to appoint Glenn Consul to Monaco

Just as bad, she sat there while Winston Peters did his infamous “No” press conference, knowing that Owen Glenn had told her it was yes.

And even worse on the 18th of July, when Peters announced the $100,000 donation, she knew conclusively he was lying as Peters said the first he knew about the donation was earlier that day when Henry told him. But he knew, at a minimum, back in February when the PM told Peters what Glenn had said.

People need to understand that the entire last six months has been a charade. When Winston Peters pretended to be angry at the allegations, Clark knew that Glenn had told her that he has donated.

Even when Peters outrageously slandered the NZ Herald, accussed them of fabricating the Glenn e-mail, and demanded Murphy and Young resign, Clark stayed silent. It was an inaction unworthy of the highest office in the land.

Peters was actively considering Owen Glenn for a diplomatic appointment. Clark had been told by Glenn that he had donated $100,000 to assist Peters. This created a huge conflict of interest. But it seems Clark sat on this information. Doing so undermines the integrity of her Government.

And finally we have the hypocrisy. The rhetoric about how we needed the Electoral Finance Act to stop secret donations to political parties. And two months after that law was passed, Helen Clark learnt of a huge $100,000 secret donation. Even worse she learnt of it from a man seeking favours from the Minister he claimed to have donated it to benefit. But did she do anything at all? Did she demand the donation be revealed as she had just spent six months vowing that such donations be exposed? No she just sat there and asked no questions, and allowed Peters to keep denying it.

Winston is in fact very lucky that Owen Glenn is a blabbermouth. Consider what would have happened if in February he had not told a journalist he was about to be appointed Consul to Monaco once Peters gets around to it.

It is very likely that the Government would have proceeded to appoint Owen Glenn as Consul. If they had not ruled it out early on, then it was probably just a matter of time. Remember they could have just said we don’t need one – as was their official policy in 2004.

So think if Glenn had been appointed Consul. And then at some stage the truth came out that he had donated $100,000 to personally benefit the Foreign Minister by paying off his legal bills.

The scandal would have been far far worse.It would probably have resulted in resignations, like in the United Kingdom. No-one would have believed they were unconnected – even if they were.

So Winston is very lucky Owen Glenn spoke up when he did.

No Right Turns blogs on Helen Clark’s see no evil policy:

Despite clear Cabinet guidelines about the declaration of interests and a separate (but sadly confidential) process for Ministers to declare interests, Clark insists that it is nothing to do with her, but instead a question for the Registrar of Pecuniary Interests. This is simply false; the question of whether Peters has failed to properly notify Parliament of his interests and the question of whether he has failed to properly declare and manage his interests as a cabinet minister are completely separate.

Nothing is more squarely a duty of the Prime Minister but to judge how her Minister’s handle interests.

Clark says Peters can keep the money. Under s2.79 of the Cabinet Manual, gifts of more than $500 must be relinquished unless the Prime Minister permits them to be retained. According to Clark, the gift paid for a legal case which served a substantial public interest, and so she has no problem with it being retained. This isn’t unreasonable, given the frequency with which MPs are involved in legal action, and it is nice to have it made clear.

Unfortunately, Clark entirely evaded the question of whether giving a minister $100,000 when you wanted a job from them created a conflict of interest. The answer is obvious, and it is shameful that she refuses to state it and stand up for proper standards in the executive.

This is very significant that Clark has approved Peters keeping the secret $100,000 donation. She knows that Owen Glenn was lobbying Peters to be given a diplomatic appointment and that Peters had discussed the issue with her.

I am surprised people have not wondered why Owen Glenn would decide to donate $100,000 to a secret legal fund for Winston Peters. What was his motivation?

Well let us look at why he donated to Labour. He said he liked their policy of supporting a free trade agreement with China. But NZ First is totally opposed to that agreement, so he did not donate because he likes their policies I presume.

Maybe he just liked Winston, and wanted to help him. Strange though that he never mentioned it in all his meetings with him.

It would be interesting to have someone ask Winston the dates of all his meetings or conversations with Owen Glenn, and when he first raised the issue of Consul.

It would also be interesting to know when Brian Henry received the money and first talked to Glenn about a donation.

I am not saying there is a linkage, but the timings would be useful for people to be able to make a judgement call.

Brian Henry and Winston Peters have said that until yesterday Winston Peters did not know Owen Glenn donated $100,000 to pay Winston’s legal bills. Now this is impossible to disprove unless someone leaks some more e-mails.

But we can look at how credible this is, so people can make a judgement. For politics is about credibility.

Now if one is to believe that Peters did not know of the donation from Glenn until Friday, you have to believe all of the following. Note – not just one of the following- but all of it:

1. Owen Glenn found out about the “Legal Expenses Fund” from someone other than Winston Peters.
2. Glenn found this out despite almost no one who actually lives in New Zealand knowing about it.
3. Glenn chose on his own whim to donate to the Legal Expenses Fund rather than NZ First.
4. Glenn never ever mentioned to Winston Peters he had donated or intended to donate to his legal expenses fund. Glenn is of course known as the soul of discretion.
5. Glenn managed to get contact details for Brian Henry from someone who is not Winston Peters.
6. The fund which has been running since 1991 has raised a total of $200,000 of which the $100,000 donation constitutes half in one swoop, and he never asked nor suspected who the donor was.
7. When the media reported Owen Glenn in February 2008 as having donated to another party, Brian Henry never clicked that he was referring to the $100,000 Glenn gave Henry for Peters’ legal fees.
8. Winston Peters never thought to check if the large $100,000 donation his lawyer had received could be the donation being referred to by Owen Glenn in February.
9. Brian Henry let Winston go into a press conference and deny that NZ First had received any money at all from Owen Glenn – not even a dollar, and did not feel he had an ethical, moral or professional duty to tell him of the personal donation to Peters’ legal expenses
10. That Brian Henry was aware the Winston Peters was considering appointing Owen Glenn as Consul to Monaco, and did not think the fact Glenn had donated $100,000 to Peters’ legal expenses was something that should be disclosed.
11. After the NZ Herald on 12 July printed the e-mail from Owen Glenn, Brian Henry still said nothing to Peters despite it being glaringly obvious what he was referring to.
12. There was some legitimate reason Winston Peters did not do the obvious when the e-mail was printed and contact Owen Glenn to ask him if the e-mail was real, and what the hell he was on about?
13. That Winston Peters never wondered why Steve Fisher was so desperate to make sure Owen Glenn did not contradict what Peters said?
14. Even after Brian Henry saw Winston denying everything, claiming the e-mail is fabricated and calling Audrey Young a liar, he still didn’t think he needed to urgently inform Winston that the e-mail was correct (from Glenn’s perspective)
15. That during all this time, Winston Peters never wondered if the mystery $100,000 donation for his legal fees could be from Owen Glenn, and that it all came as a total surprise.
16. It took Brian Henry seven days to manage to talk to his close personal friend and long standing client, to let him know that he had information which verified the e-mail in the Herald.

Now if you do believe all of the above, I’d like to take you to San Francisco where I have some real estate to sell you.

The Herald reports that Winston Peters has told the PM directly that he denies any donation from Owen Glenn to NZ First, and continues to suggest the e-mail the Herald printed is fabricated.

I am puzzled that he is directing all his anger at the NZ Herald, and not any towards Owen Glenn. The obvious solution for Peters is for Owen Glenn to confirm what Peters has said. Why has Winston not picked up the phone to Owen Glenn and asked him if the e-mail is true, and if so why did he say he gave a donation when he didn’t?

The attacks on the Herald Political Editor personally are in my opinion a huge blunder. The gallery have memories of Muldoon when he tried to bully individual journalists and they tend to band together when an MP tries to destory the career of one of their own.

The reality is that any media organisation would have run a story based on that e-mail. And it is a fact that four days on from its publication, neither Owen Glenn nor Steve Fisher have in any way suggested it is fake or forged. To the contrary they have both made statements that are consistent with the e-mail – not inconsistent.

In 1999 Jenny Shipley faced questions over a the issue of having dinner with Kevin Roberts. Jim Anderton falsely accused her of agreeing to give Saatchis the Tourism Board contract at that dinner in exchange for free work on National’s campaign.This was a malicious lie as the dinner happened after the decision on the Tourism Board contract – in fact she had never met Roberts or talked to him prior to the granting of the contract.

Now she fronted up on that issue to the media and the public and revealed the nature and timing of her meetings with Roberts, and even what was discussed at the dinner!

With this far far more serious issue, surely Peters should do the same and answer the following questions:

1. How often has he met with Owen Glenn?
2. Has he ever discussed a donation with Owen Glenn?
3. Why has the Government changed its position on not needing a Consul in Monaco?
4. What indications were given to Owen Glenn regarding Monaco?

Peters seems to think that simply claiming the e-mail is fabricated, deals with the issue. But if the e-mail is fabricated, why has Owen Glenn not said so?

Helen Clark can contact Owen Glenn either directly or through Mike Williams. He is her largest donor. Why doesn’t she call on Owen Glenn to talk to the media and confirm whether or not the e-mail is real or not, and if so why he stated he donated to NZ First?

Glenn will not refuse a request from the Prime Minister to front up and tell the truth.

The other question for Clark and Williams is whether or not they are still happy to accept large donations from Glenn. Williams a few months ago said he was. You see if Clark is saying she beleives Winston, then that casts huge Glenn in a very bad light. It implies he is a liar or a fantasist. Why would you accept money from him if you beleive that about him?

If Clark thinks the e-mail is fabricated by the NZ Herald, then she must be appalled that Owen Glenn has not stepped forward to clear her Foreign Minister. Again why would you accept money from someone who is willing to let her Foreign Minister be smeared on the basis of a fake e-mail?

If Clark and Peters want this issue to go away, then they have to ask Owen Glenn to speak up. All he has to do is answer the following questions:

1. Is the e-mail fabricated or real?
2. Did he make a donation to NZ First or anyone associated with NZ First directly or indirectly?

If the answer to (1) is it is fabricated – then the Police must be called in to investigate this henious crime. The people responsible have massively defamed Peters and Glenn and must be identified.

If the answer to (1) is it is real, then Glenn has to detail whether or not he was telling the truth in a private e-mail to his PR advisor. Was he joking? Was he mistaken? Did he invent the whole episode?

And if the answer to (2) is he was not lying to his PR advisor in a private e-mail, but telling the truth as he saw it – he needs to state what size donation he made, who it was made out to and who was it delivered to. Maybe it was someone else in NZ First who didn’t tell WInston. Maybe he donated through some intermediaries and NZ First did not realise he was the ultimate source?

Now all these details won’t even be necessary, if Owen Glenn will simply deal with the first point. All he needs to do is confirm the claim by WInston Peters that the e-mail is fabricated or fake. Helen Clark and Winston Peters should call on him publicly to confirm or deny the authencity of the e-mail.

So much for Helen Clark’s claims the Owen Glenn affair has nothing to do with her. The NZ Herald this morning shows that just a few weeks ago Owen Glenn was still lobbying to be appointed NZ’s Consul to Monaco, and not only is he still writing to Winston Peters about it, but the pair appear to have met to discuss the possibility in Europe in May.

This makes the issue of whether or not Owen Glenn has made secret donations (as he claims to have done) to her Foreign Minister’s party, an issue for her as Head of Government. He is dealing with Peters not just as NZ First Leader but as Foreign Minister.

Will Winston claim the letter quoted in the Herald is also fabricated?

Will Helen publish a price list for other diplomatic positions?

Some related facts about Owen Glenn:

1. He was not born in New Zealand.
2. He has not lived in New Zealand for over 40 years.
3. He is not eligible to vote in New Zealand.
4. He is estimated to have a fortune of around NZ$1.1 billion.
5. He donated $500,000 to Labour for the 2005 election.
6. This is the largest known donor ever in New Zealand politics.
7. The Labour Party amended the Electoral Finance Bill to specifically allow him to keep donating money, while restricting other foreign donations to $1,000 (by defining a foreign donation as being okay from overseas residents who are NZ citizens even though they are ineligible to enrol or vote)
8. He gave Labour a further $100,000 interest free loan in 2007.
9. Labour gave him a gong – Officer of the NZ Order of Merit in 2007.
10. Labour President Mike Williams lied when he said they had not received a donation from Owen Glenn since the 2005 election, as the interest free loan counts as a donation.
11. Mike Williams has said he will be asking Owen Glenn for money for the 2008 election.
12. Owen Glenn says Bill Lloyd of Sovereign Yachts had been “badly dealt by” over getting cheap Government land for his business “…but it’s all been resolved through the good services of Mike Williams, the President of the Labour Party, who’s done a mammoth job.”
13. Owen Glenn wants to be Honorary Consul for NZ to Monaco.
14. Before Owen wanted this post, the Government had repeatedly ruled out having a Consul in Monaco.
15. Mike Williams lobbied Helen Clark on behalf of Owen Glenn to get him made Consul.
16. Owen Glenn lobbed Winston Peters to be made Consul and said he will be confirmed as Consul “when Peters gets off his arse”.
17. Owen Glenn was never given any negative signals about being made Consul even though a previous expression of interest by an individual was comprehensively ruled out by the Government.
18. Owen Glenn says he has donated money to NZ First.
19. The then NZ First President says a five figure donation closer to $100,000 than $10,000 appeared anonymously in their bank account in December 2007.
20. Winston Peters says NZ First has never received any money from Owen Glenn or his associates.
21. NZ First filed a donations return claiming no-one gave then more than $10,000 in 2007.
22. Owen Glenn’s PR firm advised Owen Glenn not to contradict Winston’s denials even though he did make a donation.
23. The Maori Party say someone offered them $250,000 as a campaign donation before the 2005 election if it agreed to support Labour. The offer was made twice.
24. The Maori Party say it was made on behalf of someone who “lived outside New Zealand, and had donated money to the Labour Party” and the intermediary met with him on a yacht or a boat.
25. Owen Glenn’s PR firm says he was right to deny he made the offer.
26. Labour and NZ First forced through the Electoral Finance Act whose purpose is “to strengthen the law governing electoral financing and broadcasting, in order to … prevent the undue influence of wealth on electoral outcomes and … provide greater transparency and accountability on the part of candidates, parties, and other persons engaged in election activities in order to minimise the perception of corruption”

I now fully back Owen Glenn’s application to be Honorary Consul in Monaco. And no I haven’t suddenly had $90,000 appear inmy bank account I know nothing about!

In an ODT article in the Herald, Simon Cunliffe interviews Glenn who reveals he planned beach volleyball competitions in Monaco if he becomes Honorary Consul.  Now anything which promotes beach volleyball around the world is a worthwhile endeavour in my eyes