Kiwiblog

I hope the scampi is nice!

Few would be surprised that the never aired TVNZ interview alleging perjury before the scampi select committee inquiry has made its way onto the Internet, and is on various video sharing sites and political blogs.

Neither TVNZ nor TV3 have shown it, but I suspect many New Zealanders will get to view it on the Internet, as it is near impossible to kill off material once it has appeared online.

The allegations and issues around the scampi inquiry are too serious to ignore. The next Government, regardless of who is in power, should order a full judicial inquiry into the issues and allegations. There may be nothing to them, but if that is the case, then those accused should welcome the chance to have their names and reputations cleared.

PS: Please do not place links to the videos in the comments, as there is some legal risk in doing so.

This is from Hansard, and is protected under Parliamentary Privilege:

RODNEY HIDE (Leader—ACT) to the Prime Minister: Does she stand by her answer given in oral question No. 4 from the Rt Hon Winston Peters on 10 April 2003 that “This Government does not tolerate corruption. Any allegations are investigated.”?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK (Prime Minister) : Yes.

Rodney Hide: Will the Prime Minister therefore assure the House that the Serious Fraud Office will be able to assess and investigate, unimpeded, the claims of corruption by a businessman, repeated on several occasions to Dominion Post reporter Phil Kitchin, that this businessman was one of several people to whom Peter Simunovich gave $9,999.95 in 2002, to pass on to New Zealand First in exchange for Winston Peters’ “shutting up about his allegations of wrongdoing against Simunovich Fisheries”, and that “Sure enough, within a couple of weeks Winston Peters did shut up.”, and that the man’s statement and details were provided last week to the Serious Fraud Office, and that the businessman himself was concerned for his personal safety?

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have just heard a very serious allegation from a member who, typically, failed to name anyone other than one company. But the critical person is the one he claims to be a businessman, whose life is under threat, apparently—unless it is from Rodney I cannot imagine from whom. But, I want to know, is that a fair question in this House?

Madam SPEAKER: Well, unfortunately, yes, from time to time allegations are made, and that question falls into that category that is permitted under the Standing Orders.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: The relevant question to me was “Can such allegations be fully and independently investigated?”, and the answer is, of course, yes.

Madam SPEAKER: Supplementary question, Rodney Hide. Oh, point of order, the Rt Hon Winston—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: No, I want to ask a supplementary question.

Rodney Hide: Well, you can take your turn.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: It is my turn.

Madam SPEAKER: Would you both sit down, otherwise you will both leave the Chamber and no one will be asking the question, which will solve the problem. Be seated. I called Rodney Hide before I saw the Rt Hon Winston Peters, so I will call Rodney Hide and then we will take the Rt Hon Winston Peters’ question.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister think it a good look for her Government to be abolishing the Serious Fraud Office just as it is assessing the complaint made by a former business associate of Peter Simunovich that her Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, went to see Peter Simunovich to show him the evidence of corruption he had against Peter Simunovich and stated that through a payment of $50,000, “we would just slowly get rid of it”, or will she just keep accepting her Minister of Foreign Affairs’ word that he has done nothing wrong—

(more…)

The TV3 site has details and video footage of question time.

ACT leader Rodney Hide was ejected from the House today after trying to ask Prime Minister Helen Clark whether she would think it appropriate if her Minister of Foreign Affairs, Winston Peters, had allegedly received payments in 2002 from businessmen acting on behalf of Simunovich Fisheries. …

Hide’s ejection prompted a debate led by Bill English, Gerry Brownlee and Michael Cullen regarding the appropriateness of the Speaker’s decision. Brownlee questioned whether or not the Speaker should also accept Hide’s word that he had received evidence against Peters. However, the Speaker ruled that because of his direct association with any case currently before the courts, Peters’ word must be trusted ahead of that of the ACT Party leader. She also noted that if Peters was found to have misled the House, he would then be the recipient of applicable consequences. …

Early in the investigation against Simunovich Fisheries, Peters had been one of those accusing the company of corruption. However he later withdrew his allegations after claiming that the corruption case did not stand up to scrutiny.

Peters has previously asserted in 2004 that both he and NZ First had not received any donations from Simunovich Fisheries. However, more recently Peters could not confirm or deny that any donations had been made to NZ First by Simunovich Fisheries or its owners. During the 2003 inquiry the fishing company told the select committee that it had not offered any “campaign funds” to Mr Peters or his party.

Busted Blonde also has details.

The TV news tonight should be interesting.

The Dom Post cites a “well-placed NZ First source” that NZ First has banked at least one cheque bearing the Simunovich name.

And the problem for Winston, if this is true, is:

Mr Peters was asked in 2004 if his party had received donations from Simunovich Fisheries when it was revealed that his adviser, former National MP Ross Meurant, was also working for Simunovich. “I’m saying no,” Mr Peters said.

The Hive recalls previous issues with Smunovich.

We also have the latest response from Helen Clark’s Minister of Foreign Affairs:

WP: Got your tape rolling, Phil?

WP: I told you I’m not talking to a lying gripper

WP: You know what that is? That is a lying wanker who won’t let go. See you.

Helen Clark promised new standards for her Government when she was elected. This is obviously what she meant. This is not Muldoonism. This is far beyond anything Muldoon did.