Helen Clark lies down with dogs

The Labour Government has found itself in a difficult position today.

It relies on one Winston Peters to pass their Emissions Trading Bill, a bill so deleterious and poorly drafted that it will have a huge negative impact on New Zealanders and their economy.

If the bill is not passed into law and we have the unfortunate occurrence of another Labour Government after the 2008 election, they will not be able to pass the various taxes and charges that they have devised so that they can adhere to the Kyoto Protocol that they signed us up to.

While to rely on such a corrupt individual as Winston Peters to pass such a corrupt law as the Emissions Trading Bill might be understandable and clearly appropriate in that respect, it behoves Helen Clark to have principles for a change. She needs to sack Peters for his lies over the Owen Glenn donation and not rely on such an individual to pass such a country changing law, regardless of the politics that she is pushing.

To do nothing is to lay down with the Banana Republic dog, list member of Parliament, one Winston Peters and it reflects poorly on the credibility and honesty(again) of Helen Clark and her Labour Party.

It also tarnishes the high office of the position of Prime Minister, regardless of who the Prime Minister is.


Related Political Animal reading

Don't let the Bastard go
Dompost reels in another Peter's Payment
Winston isn't a conspiracy theorist: Yeah right!
Winston Peters lost in Wonderland
Winston peters Scrutiny tazered by Anette King
Owen Glenn's letter to the Privileges Committee
Winston Peter's letter to the Privileges Committee
Winston Peters caught out lying
Winston Circus hangover continues
Winston Peter's Glenn donation scandal: But wait, there is more!
Peter's hangs himself in February Paul Henry Interview
Peter's admits lying about Glenn donation
Winston's silence is telling
Labour gets tangled in Peter's lies
Leaked Glenn Email
Winston got secret donations from Owen Glenn
The Owen Glenn Story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

c Political Animal 2008

Winston's $40,000,00 question

In the latest in the Winston Peter's payola scandal, a revelation made on Monday at the privileges committee hearing into Peters secret $100,000.00 donation from Owen Glenn, by Winston Peter's Lawyer Brian Henry, that he paid a $40000.00 debt owed for court costs to Tauranga MP Bob Clarkson and a subsequent statement made by Peters that he had paid the $40000 has today taken a bizarre twist.

Peters has come out this afternoon, as reported in the NBR with this statement:

"Mr Henry paid the money to ensure the bill was paid in time -- and he was later reimbursed by myself," he said in notes for a speech to members of Grey Power's Upper Hutt Branch.
"He checked his records yesterday and found this was indeed the case."

Mr Henry intended to notify the committee, which would effectively debunk claims he had broken Parliament's rules, he said.

"This issue is the last one my opponents had to go on."


This causes Peters an even bigger problem than the initial statement made by Mr Henry on Monday at the hearing, because Peters and Henry had both claimed that for 15 years Peters had a monkey no see, no hear or no listen approach to funding of Peters, and his NZ First Party. Peters claimed that this approach meant he didn't know who gave him money and in addition no bills were ever sent to Peters for legal services rendered.

Apparently records were kept of such a $40000.00 transaction, where no bills were sent and Peters paid this debt himself.

That contradicts Peters and Henry's claim made on Monday that Peters didn't know where money was coming from, where it was going to and that a distance was kept by him in financial transactions between him and his lawyer.

Just an acceptation is this case Winston, or another lie?

Mr Peters was either lying on Monday or lying today to cover up the former one.

The trouble is he has told so many fibs he probably doesn't know himself anymore.

The problem is if you live your life by constantly lying, you have to keep lying to keep the initial lie perpetuated as the perceived truth.

Winston Peters isn't as perfect as he thinks he is and he has now been nakedly caught out.

Unfortunately Both Helen Clark and John Key seem unwilling to come out and lay the political sword into his back, up to the hilt.

New Zealand voters deserve much better.


Winston Peters payola scandal @ Political Animal

Planned ignorance no defence in Peter's case
VIDEO: Winston Goes to Wonderland in Parliament
Don't let the bastard go
Dompost reels in another Peter's Payment
Winston isn't a conspiracy theorist: Yeah right!
Winston Peters lost in Wonderland
Winston Circus hangover continues
Discretion was the essential part of Vela Donation
Winston Peter's Glenn donation scandal: But wait, there is more!
Peter's hangs himself in February Paul Henry Interview
Peter's admits lying about Glenn donation
Winston's silence is telling
Labour gets tangled in Peter's lies
Leaked Glenn Email
Winston got secret donations from Owen Glenn
The Owen Glenn Story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note

Donations saga impacts Peters (02:00) -Related Video

c Political Animal 2008

Planned ignorance no defence in Peter's case

Donations saga impacts Peters (02:00) -Related Video


Winston Peters was belligerent, argumentative and highly flustered in his first day before a privileges committee tonight regarding suspect donations given to himself personally or his Party NZ First.

Peters has stated that he didn't break any funding laws because his lawyer never sent him a bill!

Peters as a lawyer himself should know that ignorance of a law is no defence against evidence that clearly condemns a defendant.

Peters defences against the $100,000.00 dollar donation from Owen Glenn was that the cheque was paid into his solicitor Brian Henry's account to help meet his legal costs and Henry did not tell him about it until July this year.

Another clear cop out, It is still in effect a donation to Peters.

There seemed to be a lax relationship between Winston Peters and his lawyer Mr Henry, with Peter's legal bills, most related to political matters, paid for by Henry after he himself procured funding from various sources, one such source of funds coming from Owen Glenn.

Peters is clearly guilty of at least accepting money, one way or the other, from various sources, and not openly declaring that money.

The fact that Peters "didn't know" is highly erroneous because Peters knew because of his casual relationship with Mr Henry and that it might mean money used to pay any "legal bills" might need to be declared. Otherwise why would they both insist that Peters shouldn't know?

So now having been caught he can claim innocence because he "didn't know"?

The committee presiding over the hearing will now decide whether to get evidence from any other player in the saga before preparing a report to be debated in Parliament.

c Political Animal 2008