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...

[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:Me]

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.