For the political animals on here

[MisterD]

If you wanted to know what Rodney was trying to say, that Helengrad wants kept quiet...well the supressed TVNZ tape is up on the blogs now and will probabaly be gone by lunchtime, if not breakfast.

Whaleoil is a wee bit busy it seems, so here is a link to Keeping Stock:

www.keepingstock.blogspot.com

I think the excrement may just have impacted the rotating cooling blades...:shit:

[Swampdonkey]

And Peters and dear leader think National have a secret agenda..Well fuck me gently,look at this for a cover up.........Snap election now!!

[Steam]

The select committee can only go on the evidence it is given. So if this guy, Mr Crapper, lies constantly and gives false evidence, is it the select committee's fault they believed him?
Clark and Peters trusted the select committee, and the committee trusted Mr Crapper to tell the truth.
They had to go on the evidence given to them.

[Tank]

The select committee can only go on the evidence it is given. So if this guy, Mr Crapper, lies constantly and gives false evidence, is it the select committee's fault they believed him?
Clark and Peters trusted the select committee, and the committee trusted Mr Crapper to tell the truth.
They had to go on the evidence given to them.

The point is that they knew about this interview and chose to hush it - txt from whaleoil since its kind of hard to get to at the moment:

If true then justice in respect of the select committee inquiry into the Scampi Quota allocations has seriously been perverted. Not only that you have to ask why the person who insisted on the inquiry in the first place then changed his tune during the inquiry.

People have been beaten up and in an attempt to stop you seeing the video. I will probably get a hiding now for publishing it, but I have published it because it is very much in the public interest to do so. It appears that a parliamentary select committee has been compromised through bribery, corruption and perjury. This goes to the heart of our democracy. I am going to need legal representation after showing this video to the world.

More important though is why has the government remained so silent on this. Under the “no surprises” doctrine, surely the Finance Minister and the Broadcasting Minister at the time must have been alerted to the explosive contents of this video, and at the time it was filmed we know that the TVNZ board was leaking like the proverbial collander to the Prime minister herself.

Further the ongoing ramifications of wealthy business interests and politicians maintaining legal proceedings with huge sums attached in order to suppress this information strikes the foundations of NZ politics.

Now the information is in the public domain thanks to WOBH, where sunlight is the best disinfectant, we need to urgently look at establishing an Independent Commission against Corruption and a Royal Commission of Inquiry into the Scampi Allocation and subsequent perjury allegations contained in this video.

Remember we are not talking about a lowly backbencher or associate minister getting some tiling done here, we are talking about New Zealand’s face around the world, our government representative, the Foreign Minister and/or the Prime Minister.

absolutely fucken disgusting Helen and Peters both

[Steam]

The point is that they knew about this interview and chose to hush it

Woah, wow! okay, I didn't know that. That puts a whole new slant on it. They're fucked.
Dumbarses.

Good work posting it Tank, have your also saved the video and posted it to a couple of other video sites as backups?

[Tank]

And here is the transcript of the questions Rodders tried asking Helen and Peters the other day and almost got ejected from the house - they make a lot more sense now.

Nice to see the guy heading the select cmt making a problem go away for 50k huh.

Question 5. 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—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. We are not going to truly have some sort of half-baked Serious Fraud Office inquiry inside this House conducted by “Rodney Hide QC”. The reality of it is that he has not presented one fact to make these serious allegations. They are deadly serious in my view, and they also concern the issue on which we turned over Radio New Zealand and Television New Zealand (TVNZ) in December last year with one Phil Kitchin, who was working for them—those are the facts.

Madam SPEAKER: I thank the member. The only breach of the Standing Orders is that questions are meant to be succinct, as are answers. If the member could please make his question succinct, then it would be much appreciated, being consistent with the Standing Orders.

Rodney Hide: It is very hard; he has been up to such a lot of naughtiness.

Madam SPEAKER: No, could the member please just ask the question.

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister think it a good look 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 …”—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I demand that either the member gives me the evidence now or he apologises. What he is saying is baseless and, more important, it is the subject of a serious defamation case for which at the time, all the way through December last year, TVNZ and Radio New Zealand argued that they had never at any point sought to impugn my integrity. The member is now seeking to litigate a sub judice matter in the House.

[Swoop]

"Labour has been back asking controversial party donor Owen Glenn for more money despite a storm of controversy over earlier donations by the expatriate Monaco businessman.

Labour Party president Mike Williams yesterday confirmed he had met with Glenn within the past few months, but had been unsuccessful in raising more money.

The news comes as the Labour-led government reels from the fallout from controversy over New Zealand First leader Winston Peters' handling of donations to his party, one of which was a $100,000 contribution Glenn made in December 2005 to Peters' legal expenses.


Oh darn! Labour's not in strife financially is it? Wouldn't be a shame, and an irony, if its own conduct and its own Electoral Finance Act came back to bite it in the bum? Still, there's always the unions..."

Precisely.
Another nail in the coffin of the Looney Labourite sect.

[Tank]

well - nice to see our government at work this evening.

Whaleoil who leaked it have been taken down. Vid is removed from youtube and other sites.

Other sites apparently have had cease showing emails from the appropriate folk.

So much for no hidden agendas.

Does ya'all think they want this video buried?

At this rate - Winny is going to be lucky to keep put of jail. Im looking forward to the next vote of confidence - which could be needed very soon me thinks.

[Skyryder]

Persanaly I find the scampi implications more seriouse than the political donations that are currently under investigation. However the SFO have not ruled out investigation in this area if evidence leads there. If Crappers allegation can not be confirmed by other more credible parties his allegations will go nowhere. I watched the video closely and gained the impression he was telling the truth.

I'm not too sure just how this impacts on Labour at present as I am not fully converscent with the scampi allegations. Has Labour done anything unlawfull?


Skyryder

[Tank]

I'm not too sure just how this impacts on Labour at present as I am not fully converscent with the scampi allegations. Has Labour done anything unlawfull?


Skyryder

It comes down to the allegations that Winne took this vid to Swhataeveich and asked for $50,000 for it to slowly go away.

Since hes the F/A minister for labour its not a good look. Also not good is if Uncle Helen has to testify that she knew about the interview and its implications - and chose not to do anything with Winston.

So - bad news all round for the Labour party.

[Tank]

You can make out all of Rodders question from this - and you can See Winny trying to get the question stopped from being asked in the house:

Rodney Hide: Does the Prime Minister think it a good look 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 …”—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I demand that either the member gives me the evidence now or he apologises. What he is saying is baseless and, more important, it is the subject of a serious defamation case for which at the time, all the way through December last year, TVNZ and Radio New Zealand argued that they had never at any point sought to impugn my integrity. The member is now seeking to litigate a sub judice matter in the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please be seated. That is not a point of order. Would the member just complete his question, please.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The sub judice rule applies in this House. You know I have an action against TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and others.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry; would the member please be seated. No, I did not know that; I am sorry. I had not realised that. If matters are before the court, there are many precedents that they are not to be raised in this House. So would the member please just succinctly ask the point of his question, consistent with the Standing Orders.

Rodney Hide: I will pick up where I was interrupted—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—

[Skyryder]

It comes down to the allegations that Winne took this vid to Swhataeveich and asked for $50,000 for it to slowly go away.

Since hes the F/A minister for labour its not a good look. Also not good is if Uncle Helen has to testify that she knew about the interview and its implications - and chose not to do anything with Winston.

So - bad news all round for the Labour party.


That I have no doubt but there are a lot of 'if's.' The biggest 'is' are the allegations made in the video true. And as I said unless someone comes forward to collaberate the vid allegation then I doubt if this is going anywhere other than political point scoring.

Skyyrder

[Swoop]

Winne took this vid to Swhataeveich
Simunovich (Peter).

My dealings with him in the past, have always given the impression of a straight-up guy. That was a few years ago now, however.

Interesting that the video was claimed to have been "destroyed", but now appears to be quite intact.
Let's hope Liarbour have an extremely stressfull week.

[MSTRS]

Has Labour done anything unlawfull?


Skyryder

I think we all know the answer to that one...

[Tank]

That I have no doubt but there are a lot of 'if's.' The biggest 'is' are the allegations made in the video true. And as I said unless someone comes forward to collaberate the vid allegation then I doubt if this is going anywhere other than political point scoring.

Skyyrder

Not quite

Its an admission of guilt that he was committing purgery when working with the committee. That doesn't require collaboration - he freely admits it and understands that he can get in deep shit for it.

Winston (and probably Clarke) worked to have the tape 'blocked' - that also can be proven (esp Winny) - so here are million of tax payers dollars going to an enquire who's decisions were based on affidavits what the committee members knew were false.

[Tank]

Whaleoil also give background in why this is so explosive - this is from the parliment website:

KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate-this very debate we are having now-Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course-and a lot of people do not realise this-Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.




$300,000 buys a lot of scampi!

[MisterD]

Persanaly I find the scampi implications more seriouse than the political donations that are currently under investigation. However the SFO have not ruled out investigation in this area if evidence leads there. If Crappers allegation can not be confirmed by other more credible parties his allegations will go nowhere. I watched the video closely and gained the impression he was telling the truth.

I'm not too sure just how this impacts on Labour at present as I am not fully converscent with the scampi allegations. Has Labour done anything unlawfull?


The political donations thing is merely hypocrisy on Winston1st part - railing against big business donations for all these years, and all the while taking them himself. Alongside that obviously, the lack of disclosure of pecuniary interests.

The scampi thing though is real corruption, and the SFO should be able to line up monies paid against significant actions such as Winnie suddenly deciding to stop chasing Simunovich...it's a step worse than back handers for favours from the racing industry.

As far as what Labour has done, well this is a TVNZ tape so they will have known all about it for as long as it has existed. They're clearly worried as Cullen's behaviour in the house last week aiding Winnie in getting Rodney's question shut-down demonstrates...is Margaret Wilson the most pathetic excuse for a speaker ever?

[Skyryder]

The political donations thing is merely hypocrisy on Winston1st part - railing against big business donations for all these years, and all the while taking them himself. Alongside that obviously, the lack of disclosure of pecuniary interests.

The scampi thing though is real corruption, and the SFO should be able to line up monies paid against significant actions such as Winnie suddenly deciding to stop chasing Simunovich...it's a step worse than back handers for favours from the racing industry.

As far as what Labour has done, well this is a TVNZ tape so they will have known all about it for as long as it has existed. They're clearly worried as Cullen's behaviour in the house last week aiding Winnie in getting Rodney's question shut-down demonstrates...is Margaret Wilson the most pathetic excuse for a speaker ever?


I don't disagree with your comments on Wilson or for that matter those of Winstone. The rest is opinion that can be disputed. For instance on the question of Labour knowing about the tape I can only add that Labour had no knowledge of the Veitch affair. That in itself would suggest that TVNZ had a culture of not informing the Minister of events that my lead to embaressment for TVNZ excecs and I would be extreemly surpriseed if this went as far as protecting Labour as you state.. Do you have evidence of this or is it speculation?? Untill evidence of this comes up I would give Labour the benifit of the doubt.

I'm not too sure that Wilson did shut down Hide other than to insist that he make his question succinct. I remember reading something about sub judice in respect to Winstones case against TVNZ then Wilson had every right to shut up Hide as the matter is before the courts.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Whaleoil also give background in why this is so explosive - this is from the parliment website:

KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 October 2001 Winston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incompetence in fisheries. Heads need to roll.” He was calling for a dismissal of the chief executive of the Ministry of Fisheries, and he claimed that the ministry was guilty of gross incompetence, faulty allocation of scampi quota, wanton disregard for due process, and unlawful treatment of fishers. He called on the Minister of Fisheries to invoke an immediate inquiry. He said that the allocation of scampi was to be taken away from the ministry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very serious allegations, and some even called them reckless. It was classic Winston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the general debate-this very debate we are having now-Winston Peters lambasted the Minister of Fisheries for not taking action. He accused the Ministry of Fisheries of condoning corruption, aiding and abetting corruption, and involving itself in that corruption. Winston Peters said: “I will produce evidence that the ministry knowingly condoned that corruption.” He went on further to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demonstrate with voluminous evidence and affidavits why this ministry should be removed from its job and the Serious Fraud Office asked, belatedly, to do its job.”

Eventually, a parliamentary inquiry into the scampi allegations was instigated by the Primary Production Committee, following a very high-profile Assignment programme that screened on television. One would have expected Winston Peters, having made those allegations, to rejoice at having got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whisper, not a murmur. He quickly replaced Doug Woolerton, the permanent New Zealand First member on that select committee, and then spent his time focusing on narrowing and closing the terms of reference for the committee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Primary Production Committee sat for several months, consumed an enormous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 December 2003. Winston Peters produced no evidence to support the reckless allegations he had made, and he certainly did not table the “voluminous evidence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on television further allegations were made, and reference was made to a sworn affidavit. The functioning of this Parliament and its processes was raised, and the programme focused on a former member of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury members who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a former member of Parliament, Ross Meurant, was engaged by Simunovich Fisheries as an adviser and lobbyist. Concurrent with that, of course-and a lot of people do not realise this-Mr Meurant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its payroll; actually, on the taxpayers’ payroll through the Parliamentary Service.

We were told that Mr Meurant attended several meetings, together with principals of Simunovich Fisheries. Mr Meurant’s former partner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dossetter, swears that Ross Meurant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm following the infamous Kermadec restaurant meal, and the proposal was put that the payment of $300,000 to Meurant would be a good investment for the Simunovich business. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be available from an Australian bank account. Subsequently, it is alleged that Mr Meurant boasted to Yvonne Dosseter, who has sworn an affidavit, that the money was paid, and that Meurant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely serious allegation, and it brings into question in the public’s mind the functioning of our representative democracy. What we have to realise is that Winston Peters was in there with him.


$300,000 buys a lot of scampi!


Does this smell fishy. There's a money trail here that stinks of fish.


Will be interesting to see if the SFO goes down to water with rod and line and if they do are they useing sharp hooks or will the big fish get away.


Skyryder