Sunday, August 31, 2008

Labour begs for more!

Owen Glenn really is the gift that keeps on giving. At least the Labour Party think so because they are asking him for more money!

In the wake of The Winston Peters donation scandal, over secret money from Glenn and other sources, Labour Party President Mike Williams has had the temerity to meet with Glenn within the past few months, and beg for more money for the upcoming election.

Most Kiwis would be a little confused by all this though.

Why would you ask for more money from a donor that you have publicly ridiculed on more than one occasion, and had two of your ministers, Michael Cullen and Winston Peters, question Glenn's honesty?

The simple answer is that Labour are desperate. Only desperate and out of control individuals or groups would stoop this low.

Labour were embroiled in an Owen Glenn funding saga of their own earlier this year. That revolved around when certain money was given by Glenn to Labour, how much it was and whether it was a gift or a loan.

They pretty much had done their dough with Glenn at that point because they dissed him in a highly public arena just after the scandal broke out and for Mike Williams to get on his knees to Glenn again shows a double lack of respect for the man.

Considering Labour passed their anti democratic and poorly drafted Electoral Finance Act in December 2007, in Helen Clark's infamous words, "to stop big money from buying elections", to keep going back to a billionaire to fund your election campaign is highly hypocritical to say the least and highly desperate again if I am to be fully accurate with my choice of words.

Given that Helen Clark knew that Owen Glenn had given money to Winston Peters and Peters had lied about it, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility to think that Ms Clark told Mike Williams that Peters had received money from the billionaire but asked Glenn for more money under these highly suspect circumstances anyway.

Helen Clark meanwhile has been backward in coming forward about dispensing with Peters services, because she needed his votes to pass fraudulent legislation and she has gone to ground over that issue and today's revelation.

You can bet she knew about Mike Williams plea from Owen Glenn for more money but she will not speak to the media.

Meanwhile, Winston Peters has been "stood down" or "stood himself down" from his portfolios and the Serious Fraud Office is investigating the multifaceted inaccuracies of his donations web.

Peters has employed well known ambulance chaser Peter Williams QC, whose main claim to fame is a penchant for advocating for those whose personalities who have acquired the "victim hood mentality" and whipping up media coverage. Winnie clearly fits that description to a tee.

Kiwis have had a gutsful of Labour's duplicity and lies over the Glenn scandal, theirs and Winston Peters.

We all now need a chance to either vindicate the present Government or elect a new one.

Lets get it on!

c Political Animal 2008

Saturday, August 30, 2008

CSPAN VIDEO: Sen. Barack Obama's Full Speech to the DNC

Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) accepts his party's nomination for President and speaks to the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

This is the full CSPAN video with no edits or cuts. If you want to see the video in smaller bite sized pieces please go here.

FULL Barack Obama DNC Acceptance Speech Denver August 28th

Part 2 of Obama speech 9.54

Part 3 of Obama speech 9.59

Part 4 of Obama speech 9.45

Part 5 of Obama speech 2.15

Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention yesterday was Charismatic, rousing, inspirational, emotional, high on Hollywood style and had words of impact, given it was 45 years to the day that Martin Luther King, gave his "I have a Dream".

What it lacked though was any content and that folks is the problem with wee Barry.

He is as empty as his emotional charged words and his suspect backing from the corrupt Clinton's and Al Gore.

Cross your fingers my American readers. Barry's dream could be your nightmare if he is elected.

Related Video

Martin Luther Kings' "I Have a Dream"

c Political Animal 2008

VIDEO: Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream"

My curiosity has been piqued by Barack Obama's acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention yesterday.

The Internet has allowed me to check out, in full, Martin Luther King's "I have a Dream" speech given on August 28 1963-2 years before I was born.

Of course I have been aware of the various famous quotes from his speech, repeated over and over for the last 45 years but looking at the full extended play it really does hit you full in the face, heart and head.

In comparison to Barack Obama's verbose grandstanding, flashy style and little substance, Luther King's speech is not only stirring and inspirational but it contains well thought out content that Obama lacks in spades.

Have a watch, it is truly one of history's great speeches.

Related Video

FULL Barack Obama DNC Acceptance Speech

c Political Animal 2008

Friday, August 29, 2008

Charlies juices through the shareholder cash

I have never liked Marc Ellis or his schoolboy type self promotion. It is very hit and miss.

While managing to garner alot of attention for short period of time, Ellis' promotional activities lack substance and I doubt do well in the long term for the business or product being promoted.

His university degree is in commerce at Otago University, majoring in marketing and management, so there is no surprise as to why marketing is at the forefront of his business regime.

His Charlies Group Juice Company [CHA.NZX] seems to be a case in point.

The announcement last week of a NZ$425,000 FY loss to June 2008 mounts on top of other losses incurred since it listed in 2005.

Charlie's was started in 1999 by Stefan Lepionka, Marc Ellis and Simon Neal and has grown rapidly in sales since its listing but has failed to sustain any profitable growth.

Its sales come from its Charlies brand juices and a number of other brands, in New Zealand and Australia.

Charlies seems to have the Burger Fuel or 42 Below approach to business-growth without profit- but that runs at odds with the way most business operates and the way I like the businesses that I own to run-at a profit, for the majority of the time.

I might have this all wrong though, as I could with Burger Fuel.

Charlies might be a big company in the making or a business that Ellis and his mates will flog off to a large conglomerate like Coca Cola Amatil [CCL.ASX] as one of Marc's fellow directors Stefan Lepionka did with his Stefan's Orange Juice which was purchased by Frucor Beverages in 1997.

However, there has been little sign of a good sustained profit thus far and they seem to be chewing through shareholder funds rapidly in the objective to grow yet bigger.

I would love to be proven wrong.

Related Share Investor Reading

Know your market
Marketing Burger Fuel's future
Pumpkin Patch VS Burger Fuel

MHI has defined growth strategy

c Share Investor 2008

Injunction seeks to stop Labour MPs passing ETS bill

An application for an injunction to stop the Fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill has been organised by Basil Walker.

Please have a look at the application. It is one of the most damaging bills that have ever been contemplated in NZs political history.

An application to the High Court in Wellington by Basil Walker of Queenstown for an injunction to prevent Labour MPs enacting the Emissions Trading Bill will be heard on 22 September.

The injunction is sought "to prevent injustice and to enhance the viability and future productive capacity of the national of New Zealand and its business and citizens."

LINK to download pdf file of text of injunction then LINK here to download pdf of applicant's affidavit.

Related Links

NZ Climate Science Coalition

c Political Animal 2008

BREAKING NEWS: Peters stood down

Winston Peters has finally been stood down.

It has taken 24 hrs from the time that Helen Clark revealed to media that she knew about Peters lies 6 months ago, when Owen Glenn told her Winston Peters had received $100,000 from the billionaire to "stand down" the politician and it has taken 6 months in total for Clark to do anything about the scandal.

Today's move by Ms Clark was a leisurely one.

What should have been done with immediacy and efficiency instead was executed incompetently and arrogantly-by both Clark and Peters.

Meanwhile Clark will take over Peter's portfolios and will still be able to use his and his NZ First Party's votes to pass the fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill.

Labour's Emissions Trading Bill, when passed into law, will cost individual Kiwis thousands of dollars a year because of the extra taxes that the Government will be able to foist on the population to "combat (fraudulent) climate change".

The fact that Ms Clark is not prepared to put off this immensely negative bill in the face of one of her cabinet players having corruption charges swirling around him, only shows the continued arrogance and high-handedness that started with her cover-up of Peter's guilt 6 long months ago.

Sadly we have become ever so used to this style of politics from our current Prime Minister.

c Political Animal 2008

Winston Peters: Finally taken seriously

It looks like Winston Peters is about to be cast into political oblivion today.

In the light of the various donation scandals surrounding him a Serious Fraud Office investigation into those scandals an an H-Bomb dropped by the Prime Minister yesterday that she had evidence of Peters lies, it looks like Peters political career is at an end.

I say looks like, because in a political poll out yesterday Peters was polling over 5% in the preferred Prime Minister stakes and if that was translated on election day then Peters and his party would be back in Parliament.

His supporters, older Kiwis, are likely to galvanise support for him , whatever he does because they all share Peter's victim mentality, so we could see him again if the SFO inquiry doesnt get him.

Most Kiwis though will be glad to see the back of him.

All to often Kiwis have treated Peters as a joke and the last 6 months we have all seemed to laugh along with him-and nothing has happened , up to this point.

That is partly why he has survived in politics as long as he has, we do not take him seriously.

What he has been up to over the last 6 months isn't a joke though.

He has lied to Parliament and a Privileges Committee, dodged questions over his secret donations and made a mockery of our Parliament, our democracy, and ultimately our country.

If we had taken him seriously Winston Peters would have been sacked along time ago and he would be in prison. That is what happens in other real democracies that take these things seriously.

Helen Clark should also be facing a Privileges Committee hearing over her cover-up.

c Political Animal 2008

Helen Clark's secret agenda

News out yesterday that Helen Clark knew about Winston Peter's guilt over the Owen Glenn donation to Peters clearly reveals a secret agenda over party donations and the operation of her Labour Government over the last 6 months that she has been aware of Winston Peters part in this whole charade.

This is in the light of her and her party railing strongly against John Key and the National Party for having a secret agenda of their own.

The Labour Party and their President Mike Williams were embroiled in a Glenn funding scandal of their own earlier this year, when questions were asked about the timing , value and status of donations from Labours biggest donor, a donor who gifted Labour more than $500,000.

The secrecy of Clark over the Peter's scandal should put Glenn's donations to Labour under further scrutiny, given the dodgy nature of Winston Peters machinations over the last 6 months.

The question Labour voters would have to ask themselves-what else does our leader have to hide?

Related Political Animal reading

Peters/Clark/Glenn payola wrap
Helen Clark uses the nuclear option
Clarks credibility now see-through
John Key says Clark "has alot of explaining to do"
Winnie flame grills another Whopper

c Political Animal 2008

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Peters/Clark/Glenn payola story wrap

NZ First facing 'serious and complex fraud' inquiry-NZ Herald

NZ First facing 'serious and complex fraud' inquiry: Helen Clark (left) and Director of the SFO Grant Liddell (right) both want answers from Winston Peters. Photos / Mark Mitchell / Glenn Jeffrey / HOS

Helen Clark (left) and Director of the SFO Grant Liddell (right) both want answers from Winston Peters. Photos / Mark Mitchell / Glenn Jeffrey / HOS

Winston Peters has called a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation into NZ First "ridiculous in the extreme". The SFO announced this evening it will use its powers to find out whether donations from Sir Robert Jones and the Vela brothers reached…More-NZ Herald

SFO to investigate NZ First donations -

Peters tells SFO to charge him or go away

Winston Peters has vowed to meet the Serious Fraud Office's inquiry into donations to his NZ First party "head on" and labelled the investigation "ridiculous". Continued

Clark knew about Peters' donation
Peters says charge me or go away
Audio: Question time in Parliament
Blog: Should Clark have spoken up earlier?

Assorted related video

Serious Fraud Office
The noose has tightened even further around the political neck of Winston Peters with the Serious Fraud office announcing it will investigate donations made to New Zealand First... more

Nigel Roberts on the SFO donations probe (4:42) TV ONE
Close Up: The Confession (9:10) TV ONE
Guyon's politics: NZ First donation affair (5:23) TV ONE

ACT Party leader Rodney Hide has been on the attack in Parliament again. This time he has alleged TVNZ obstructed the course of justice by ordering the destruction of a taped interview and transcripts.

Helen Clark uses the Nuclear Option -Political Animal Blog

"I am not a crook"

Richard Nixon 1973

I don't slow down and gawk when passing a car wreck and look away at carnage on news footage.
I will make an exception for the Winston Peters/Helen Clark/ Owen Glenn Payola scandal because it is highly satisfactory to me to see the train wreck of a Labour Government crumble before my very eyes.

Labour say they don't want nuclear power in New Zealand but the nuclear option was used on the public today when she revealed that she is donkey deep, smack in the middle of the Peters/Glenn donation scandal. Continued

Clarks credibility now see-through
John Key says Clark "has alot of explaining to do"
Winnie flame grills another Whopper

c Political Animal 2008

John Key says Clark " has alot of explaining to do"


Helen Clark's stunning revelation today that she was told in February by Owen Glenn that he had donated $100,000 to Winston Peters leaves the Prime Minister with a lot of explaining to do, says National Party Leader John Key.

"This is a stunning revelation. Months have gone by since Helen Clark was informed by Mr Glenn about the $100,000 donation.

"The public was firstly told that Mr Peters had not received any money from Mr Glenn, then the public was told that Mr Peters had in fact received a donation but had not known about it, and then finally yesterday they were told that Mr Peters had personally solicited the donation.

"Today, we learnt that Helen Clark herself had the relevant information all that time.

"Helen Clark has got a lot of explaining to do today to the New Zealand public."

"The public are entitled to know why she withheld this crucial information for so long."

Helen Clark uses the Nuclear Option

"I am not a crook"

Richard Nixon 1973

I don't slow down and gawk when passing a car wreck and look away at carnage on news footage.
I will make an exception for the Winston Peters/Helen Clark/ Owen Glenn Payola scandal because it is highly satisfactory to me to see the train wreck of a Labour Government crumble before my very eyes.

Labour say they don't want nuclear power in New Zealand but the nuclear option was used on the public today when she revealed that she is donkey deep, smack in the middle of the Peters/Glenn donation scandal.

Helen Clark knew back in February that Peters had received $100,000 from Owen Glenn because Glenn told Clark that when he came to New Zealand on Government business in February 2008.

She has been watching on the sidelines for 6 months.

She has seen his denials, watched his performances in New Zealand and attempts overseas to bring democracy to Fiji and relied on his support in the house to pass important legislation, that changes New Zealanders' lives-the latest legislation the economy crushing Emissions Trading Bill.

She had a chance to bring this to a head 6 months ago, she had the evidence but because she wanted to protect herself politically, so chose to say nothing.

She came out today with the H Bomb simply because any further evidence from Glenn to the Privileges Committee next Thursday would have put Clark in a very difficult decision.

This afternoon Labour has also called Owen Glenn "confused" about his recollection of events regarding the money that Winston Peters asked Glenn for, even though it is Peters whose lies have been clearly exposed.

Glenn has been one of Labour's biggest donors and has given them a total of $600,000 over the last 3 years, $100,000 of it was denied by the Labour Party president earlier this year , Mike Williams, and he and his party were therefore embroiled in a similar donation scandal earlier this year.

Critiquing your major donor isn't a good look or smart, especially when he probably has evidence that will bring down the Labour support partner Winston Peter's NZ First.

Clark in effect has covered up for her Minister Winston Peters and now her thin veil of respectability has been completely demolished.

This isn't the first time Clark's credibility has been exposed and it wont be the last.

New Zealanders need and deserve more than the banana republic that we have become.

Clark must now call an early election and let the people decide if they forgive her for her latest cover-up.

Related Political Animal reading

Clarks credibility now see-through
Clarks rudeness to Owen Glenn plumbs new depths
Snouts in the trough bent out of shape
The Owen Glenn story: Singing the same tune but hitting a bum note
Labour Party Election funding murky at best

c Political Animal 2008

Helen Clarks thin credibility now see-through

What is left of Helen Clark's credibility is being sorely tested on her stance over the Winston Peters payola scandal.

In the face of more overwhelming evidence that Peters has lied over accepting money from Owen Glenn and various other sources, Helen maintains the banana republic status quo.

She is hanging onto power with a tenuous grip and using Peters vote and support for confidence and supply so her Labour Party can pass the Emissions Trading Bill.

It makes John Key's move yesterday to distance himself from Peters a political coup that is mainly reserved for the more experienced hacks in the Labour Party junta.

c Political Animal 2008

Winnie flame grills another whopper

Suspended on a high wire, with a 100ft drop below, shaky legs, carrying Rodney Hide on his back, Helen Clark throwing the Baubles of office at him and with John Key tickling him with a feather, Winston Peters is still able to leap to bizarre conclusions and balance all credibility on a gnats pubic hair.

Peters is now cooking up a curious story about a conversation he had(with who Winnie?) that seemed to date back to November 2005 in which Peters contends will redeem him when he fronts the Privileges Committee again next week.

Winnie has a few more days to flesh out his story, but the deeper he reaches down in his cave of obfuscation and bluster the more confused we all get and meanwhile Winnie gets lost in the emptiness of his own little wonderland.

He did his best to halt further allegations against him from the aforementioned Hide(no yellow jacket this time folks-very appropriate because his colour was anything BUT yellow) in Parliament yesterday, making Hide's five minute members speech an hour long.

Usually Peters is able to make his own speeches seem this long by simply speaking the regulatory five minutes.

Pass the banana please, Im feeling a republic coming on.

Peters in Parliament yesterday - VIDEO

c Political Animal 2008

NZ Herald Digipoll: 28 August 2008

The gap is closing between the two main players and the mother of the nation, Aunty Helen ,will be rubbing her bony hands together with socialistic glee.

Oh the humanity!

4:00AM Thursday August 28, 2008 By Paula Oliver

National leads Labour in every age group and every income band in the August Herald-DigiPoll survey, but its dominance is reducing among middle-aged people and higher-income earners.
With National still polling 50 per cent overall, it enjoys good support across the board.

However, since the July DigiPoll survey, which gave National a 24.6 percentage point lead - dramatically reduced to 13.7 points in this month's poll - John Key's party has suffered a loss of support in areas it might normally think might be skewed in its favour.

Although the numbers of people in each age bracket are small and therefore the analysis of the figures is indicative only, National has notably lost support in the 30-39, 50-59, and 60-69 age groups since July while Labour has picked it up.


Related Polls

NZ Herald Digipoll: 29 July 2008
NZ Herald Digipoll: 28 June 2008

c Political Animal 2008

NATIONAL PARTY : Peters unacceptable in a National-led Government

National Party Leader John Key says Winston Peters would be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by him unless Mr Peters can provide a credible explanation on the Owen Glenn saga.

"Labour Party donor Owen Glenn's letter to the Privileges Committee completely contradicts Winston Peters' version of events about the substantial $100,000 donation made by Mr Glenn to Mr Peters' legal costs.

"Mr Glenn's letter represents a direct challenge to Mr Peters' credibility, from the only other person in the world in a position to know the facts.

"From Parliament's point of view, the Privileges Committee provides an appropriate vehicle to resolve the points of conflict and to hold individuals to account. But from the Prime Minister's and the Government's point of view, that is not enough.

"Governments and Ministers must enjoy the confidence of the Parliament and, ultimately, the public. Faced with today's revelations, it is no longer acceptable for Mr Peters to offer bluster and insults where simple, courteous, honest answers are required.

"It is no longer acceptable or credible for Helen Clark to assert a facade of confidence in her Foreign Affairs Minister and to fail to ask the plain questions of him that she has a duty to the public to ask.

"Faced with today's revelations, Helen Clark must stand Mr Peters down as a Minister. That is what I would do if I were Prime Minister. Helen Clark has stood Ministers from Labour down for much less.

"Unless he can provide a credible explanation about this serious issue, he should be unacceptable to Helen Clark as a Minister in her Labour-led Government.

"Mr Peters will be unacceptable as a Minister in a government led by me unless he can provide a credible explanation."

Foodstuffs take their foot off the gas

Foodstuffs Ltd, one of the two players locked neck for neck in a court bid over the last year against the Commerce Commission to allow them to make a bid for The Warehouse [WHS.NZ] say they will now drop their own appeal in the Supreme Court and leave it up to Woolworths Australia [WOW:ASX] the other player, to argue the case in the court.

Foodstuffs managing director Tony Carter has been reported as saying that Woolworths would argue a similar case, and saw no point in their joining, as they did in the Court of Appeal case that the Commerce Commission took, against a decision made in the prospective buyers favour in the High Court.

Having come this far, arguing cases in the High Court and Court of Appeal, I find it curious that Carter and Foodstuffs would now stand aside.

It just isn't in Carter's style to do the "softly, softly" approach. His company fought tooth and nail against Progressive-the former owner of part of the present Woolworths Group in New Zealand-buying the Woolworths brand to add to their Foodtown and Countdown brands a few years back.

It looks to me that Carter can see the possibility of Foodstuffs buying The Warehouse to be moving further and further away from its grasp.

"We will await with interest the outcome of the Woolworths appeal and, as we have consistently said, we would not rule anything in or anything out going forward..."

The fact that Woolworths Australia were the first party to make their bid for an appeal against the Appeal Court decision known publicly would indicate to me a more positive outlook that management have in being a successful bidder for The Warehouse.

There is no news out yet about whether the move to seek leave from the Court of Appeal to take the case to the Supreme Court is a happening thing but it is likely that leave will be given.

Given the backlog in the Supreme Court, it is unlikely that Woolworths will get a court date before Christmas and any decision, either way, will not be made until 2009. Yes 2009.

Shares in The Warehouse have prevaricated with the whims of the Courts. Vacillating in the high 6 buck range when the courts found in the possible bidders' favour, to less than NZ$3 after the decision not to allow any bids for The Warehouse from the Court of Appeal came out on August 15.

Shares closed down 3c to $3.35 today.

The Warehouse Group @ Share Investor

The Warehouse: Is it Time to Bow Out?
Share The Warehouse: What the Fuck is it Doing?
Share Investor Q & A: The Warehouse' Ian Morrice  
Share Investor Q & A: Questions to The Warehouse' Ian Morrice
Long Term View: The Warehouse Group Ltd
Share Investor Short: Warehouse Group yield worth a look
The Warehouse Group: 2010 Interim Profit Review
The Warehouse: Big Brands, Big Opportunities
Warehouse strike opportunity to buy
Long Term Play: The Warehouse Group
Share Investor Short: Warehouse Group yield worth a second look
Woolworths supermarket consolidation an indicator of a move on the Warehouse?
Stock of the Week: The Warehouse Group
Warehouse 2009 interim profit a key economic indicator
When will The Warehouse bidders make their move?
Long vs Short: The Warehouse Group
Warehouse bidders ready to lay money down
The Warehouse set to cut lose "extra" impediment
The Warehouse sale could hinge on "Extra" decision
The case for The Warehouse without a buyer
Foodstuffs take their foot off the gas
Woolworths seek leave to appeal to Supreme Court
Warehouse appeal decision imminent
Warehouse decision a loser for all
Warehouse Court of appeal decision in Commerce Commission's favour
MARKETWATCH: The Warehouse
The Warehouse takeover saga continues
Why did you buy that stock? [The Warehouse]
History of Warehouse takeover players suggest a long winding road
Court of Appeal delays Warehouse bid
The Warehouse set for turbulent 2008
The Warehouse Court of Appeal case lay in "Extras" hands
WHS Court of Appeal case could be dismissed next week
Commerce Commission impacts on the Warehouse bottom line
The Warehouse in play
Outcomes of Commerce Commission decision
The fight for control begins soon

Discuss WHS @ Share Investor Forum - Register free 
Download WHS company reports

Related Amazon Reading

The Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works--and HowIt's Transforming the  American EconomyThe Wal-Mart Effect: How the World's Most Powerful Company Really Works--and HowIt's Transforming the American Economy by Charles Fishman
Buy new: $12.25 / Used from: $0.25
Usually ships in 24 hours

c Share Investor 2008 & 2009

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

VIDEO: Winston Peters VS Rodney Hide

Today Rodney Hide is trying to debate the corrupt practices of one Winston Peters. In his five minute members speech, he was continually interrupted by Peters because he didn't like what he was hearing. His 5 minute speech took an hour.

This video from Parliament 3 weeks ago shows some similar obfuscation from Winston Peters and it was a pathetic attempt from him to shut down democratic debate.

This from an individual holding up the Labour Government in regard to important legistlation, representing us as Foreign Minister and advising Fiji on its democratic process.

What a bloody joke, pass the banana.

c Political Animal 2008

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

Labour plans big taxes on the family car

As part of the Labour Party's Climate change taxes, post the 2008 Election, and in relation to the emissions trading scheme that they want to pass over the next few weeks, with the help of NZ First and Winston Peters vote, comes a secret agenda for Labour to tax cars depending on their size.

Its Labour policy after the election.

National Party Finance spokesman Bill English has welcomed Labour's belated admission that it is indeed considering a new tax that could push up the price of a family car by thousands of dollars.

"The Associate Transport Minister has tonight confirmed the new emissions tax on cars is being considered. It will mean that if your car emits more CO2 than a Suzuki Swift, the tax will apply."

Mr English says while the emissions tax will apply to new and imported used cars, it is likely to force up the price of second-hand vehicles and, longer-term, possibly the age of the Kiwi car fleet as well.

The proposed new levy will apply to all new and used imported cars if they do not meet fuel economy standards. The proposed levy is set out in the discussion document 'Improving the fuel economy of vehicles entering the New Zealand fleet'.

"The family sedan or wagon is likely to go up in price by more than $7,000 by 2015."

The levy will range from $4,000 for a van in 2009 to $10,000 for a Holden Commodore next year. Labour's plan is that, starting in 2009, the Government will begin charging importers $150 per gram of CO2 emitted per kilometre travelled above the standard of 214g CO2/km.

"The national standard will be lowered to 170g CO2/km by 2015. That's the fuel economy of a Suzuki Swift."


• The cost of a Toyota Camry (229g CO2/km) will rise $2,250 in 2009, climbing to $8,850 in 2015.• The cost of a Honda Accord (220g CO2/km) will rise $900 in 2009, climbing to $7,500 in 2015.• The cost of a Mazda6 (218g CO2/km) will rise $600 in 2009, climbing to $7,200 in 2015.• The cost of a Toyota Hi-ace (245g CO2/km) will rise $4,650 in 2009, climbing to $11,250 in 2015.• The cost of a Holden Commodore (282gCO2/km) will rise $10,200 in 2009, climbing to $16,800 in 2015.
As older cars do not have the required fuel economy information, the Government will assess these cars as emitting 400gCO2/km at a cost of some $27,900 by 2009.

From the Bill English Party Website and Hansard from 26.08.08

c Political Animal & Bill English 2008

Winston Peter's scrutiny tazered by Annette King

c Stan Blanch 2008

Scrutiny of new revelations over Owen Glenn revealing in a letter to the Privileges Committee today that Winston Peters solicited $1000,000 from him and on a separate occasion Peters thanking him for "helping him" and his NZ First Party, was delayed in parliament today when Labour sought a rare snap debate on the possibility that Tazers could be introduced so the police could use them.

Labour have had 18 months to make a decision on this matter and chose today to have a snap debate simply to delay scrutiny of Helen Clark's Labour Government and its support of Winston Peters and his clear problem with the truth.

c Political Animal 2008

Winston Peter's letter to the Privileges Committee

26 August 2008

Mr Simon Power MP
Chairperson Privileges Committee
Parliament Buildings

Dear Mr Power

I refer to Mr Owen Glenn's letter 19 August 2008.

I have not spoken to Mr Glenn since the New Zealand Herald article of 12 July earlier this year.
Addressing Mr Glenn's letter and in the less than 24 hours I and my staff have had to check the facts I can advise as follows:

Paras 1-3 require no response save the date 20 December 2005 in para 2 should, from Mr Henry's evidence, read 22 December.

Para 4, line 2 "at his request" is not factual and does not coincide with my recollections. I believe that I met Mr Glenn many years ago and on the weekend of 13 August, well before the 2005 election, in Sydney, Bledisloe Cup weekend which is the only time I met him in Australia. The "personal conversation" I believe relates to his conversation with Mr Henry, and the "Labour Party, in relationship with Mr Peters", seems odd now because months before December 2005 New Zealand First had entered a confidence and supply agreement with Labour on 17 October 2005.

Para 5, I have no knowledge of where and by whom any donation to New Zealand First was requested. I note Mr Glenn does not say I made it, or any donation was made, which is the substance of the New Zealand Herald 12 July allegation. Reported email in the New Zealand Herald, in fact contradicts his comment in his letter before you about donating to New Zealand First.

Para 6, for obvious reasons I cannot be of help here, not being part of the discussion or communication between Mr Henry or Mr Glenn.

Para 7 relating to the Karaka Sales 2006 appears to be a year out. I recall that in 2007 (and my diary confirms this) Mr Glenn and two others joined the table in which I and a friend shared a sit down lunch with about 8 leading names in the horse racing fraternity.

In my evidence to the committee and in my press statement of 18 July I did not thank him until my lawyer advised me on 18 July 2008.

My press statement of 18 July refers to my public appreciation of his help.

Yours sincerely

Rt Hon Winston Peters
Leader New Zealand First.

Owen Glenn's letter to the Priveleges Committee

Mr Simon Power MP
Chairperson Privileges Committee
House of Representatives
Parliament Buildings WELLINGTON

19 August 2008

RE: Complaint concerning my donation to Rt Hon Winston Peters MP

Dear Mr Power,

I refer to your letter of 19 August 2008 concerning what I understand originated as a complaint made by Mr Rodney Hide MP. I do not know Mr Hide. I have not had any communication with him.

I am happy to cooperate with you about the $100,000 payment that I instructed to be made on or about 20 December 2005, which I believe was to the practice account of Mr BP Henry, an Auckland barrister, detailed below.

I wish to make no comment on any of the seven matters listed in the bullet points in your letter. I can provide a statement of the facts concerning the payment. I do not wish this letter to be treated as being private or secret. The facts of the matter are simple. I am happy for them to be public information.

The payment was made by me to assist funding the legal costs incurred personally by Rt Hon Winston Peters MP concerning his election petition dispute, at his request. Mr Peters sought help from me for this purpose in a personal conversation, some time after I had first met him in Sydney. I agreed to help in the belief that this step would also assist the Labour Party, in its relationship with Mr Peters. I supported the Labour Party.

I have never made any donation to the New Zealand First Party. I declined an earlier request to do so.

I understand that Mr Henry is Mr Peters' lawyer. I do not know Mr Henry. I do not believe that we have met. I do not recall that I, or my assistants, had any discussion or communication with Mr Henry other than to receive remittance details. I expected to receive those details, following my agreement to assist Mr Peters meet his legal costs. My office was given bank account details for payment ASB #123030 Acc# 0678019-50 BP Henry Practice Account, Remuera Branch.

The payment instruction on my Westpac account was given accordingly, on my authority.

Mr Peters subsequently met me socially at the Karaka yearling sales, I believe in early 2006. He thanked me for my assistance.

I also consider it prudent that I take legal advice in New Zealand. I have requested a Wellington barrister Dr GJ Harley to assist me with your enquiry and with any other that my follow. If there are any other particular matters that you would like me to address, please let me know what they are.

Because I travel frequently, email communication is the most convenient and effective for me. I am happy to answer any further questions in correspondence.

Yours faithfully, Owen G. Glenn

BREAKING NEWS: Winston caught out lying

Winston Peters has been caught out!

Owen Glenn has provided written evidence that Winston Peters asked him for a donation and further evidence to show that Peters thanked Glenn for a $100,000 donation.

Peters has in the past denied that he knew of the $100,000 donation made to him or his party and has repeated that in Parliament.

This clearly means Winston Peters has lied about the Owen donation and also increases the doubts over numerous other suspect donations to Peters and his NZ First Party.

Watch for a spin cycle so agitated from Peters that he calls Glenn's recollection vague and not to be trusted. In effect calling Glenn a liar.

Peters new lies will have to be big ones to cover off these latest revelations.

Yesterday, in his own letter to the Privileges Committee Winston Peters comments are at odds with today's Glenn revelations.

Helen Clark really has no choice but to call an early election because Peters has to be sacked for lying to Parliament (Video) over the Glenn donation.

The last post in a crumbling Labour Government has just fallen and it is a shameful day for us all.

Related Links

Parliament 22nd July 2008 Video of Peters Denying knowledge of Glenn Donation

C Political Animal 2008

YOUTUBE: The Global Warming Scam

In the light of the New Zealand Labour Party and its supporters about to pass the Fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill into law over the next few days, here is some more evidence of the scam that the Global Warming religion is.

Watch this evidence from Lisa Michaels and have a look at The Great Global Warming Swindle as well then make up your own mind.

The vultures in the Labour, Green and NZ First parties want to tax you to high hell and use global warming as an excuse.

c Political Animal 2008

Cash for voting Labour

Its about tax, its about redistributing wealth, its about State control and it is about Labour staying in power.

In the guise of the fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill and the extra costs that it and other Labour imposed "climate change" policies will foist on New Zealanders, it was reported this morning that Labour will give the most cash to those on "low incomes" to ameliorate those costs.

The money will apparently come from income derived from the extra taxes that Labour and its support parties, the Greens and NZ First, have already imposed on us to "offset climate change" and the additional taxes to come.

In addition another billion dollars will be given to "insulate every New Zealand home".

In effect, these cash handouts will make every individual in New Zealand a welfare beneficiary-like working for families welfare but this time it enfolds everyone in its life stifling, vile State grip.

It is reported that the one-off cash handouts, "with most going to low income families" will be given in 2010.

I suspected that Labour would try to buy the 2008 election with cash bribes and I was right.

Doing it in the guise of the fraudulent "climate change" religion is a very clever way to do it. It appears hidden in the confusion and hype of this dopey movement.

Whichever way you cut it though, cash payments to voters is definitely buying votes.

The main reason Labour say they are handing out the cash though-to offset the costs that they are imposing on us in the first place- will have little impact because their "climate change" policies will costs all consumers manifold times more than they will "give back" to "vulnerable consumers".

That is without taking into account the eventual collapse of the emissions trading scheme and the whole dodgy "climate change" house of cards that it is built around.

Related Political Animal reading

NZ First & Greens collude to pass fraudulent emissions trading bill
Fraudulent Emissions Trading Bill
Bitching and moaning
Jeanette Fitzsimons & Helen Clark in conflict with business
Kyoto critic comes to town
Global warming: Power to the people
Carbon Credit trading puts markets at extreme risk
Global Warning: Tax iceberg ahead
Unstoppable global warming
Earth Day: Turn on, tune out, buy some candles
TIME magazine slips inconvenient truth past its readers
The Great Global Warming Swindle
PRIME TV PRESENTS: The Great Global Warming Swindle
Kristen Byrnes-Ponder the Maunder
Of tulip bulbs and tooth fairies

c Political Animal 2008

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Margaret Wilson's Labour Party bias reaches peak

Speaker Margaret Wilson let her Labour Party bias reach its peak in Parliament yesterday.

Five times Rodney Hide tried to ask a question in regard to corruption centered at Winston Peters and his relationship to money allegedly paid to him by Simunovich Fisheries to "shut up" about corruption charges he had made against them.

That isn't important here. What is, is Margaret Wilson's denial of Rodney Hide's right to ask a question, according to standing orders and within parliamentary rules.

Wilson denied Peters his question when Peters alledged that there was a court case pending over the Simunovich case and therefore sub judice.

The trouble is nobody is aware of any such court case and Peters was unable to prove any evidence to back his claim.

What is clear is that Peters has escaped from answering another difficult question over continued corruption allegations and Margaret Wilson, whose job it is to be impartial, colluded with Peters to shut down the question.

She compounded her bias by allowing a supplementary to Hides original question that had no relation to the principle question and therefore shouldn't have been allowed.

Peters irrelevant supplementary in turn attacked Rodney Hide for "being corrupt" over a matter relating to the sacking of Donna Huata.

Margaret Wilson has been gradually descending into the abyss of today's deep bias towards her Labour Party colleagues since her first day as speaker and seems to have done as much as she could oiver the years to make Labours time in the House as comfortable as possible, without ever being too explicit.

Until today.

We really deserve better from our democracy.

Related Political Animal reading

Rodney Hide reveals new Peters corruption allegation

c Political Animal 2008

Rodney Hide reveals new Winston Peter's corruption allegation

The following question is question 5 from Rodney Hide today in Parliament today.

It is from the full Hansard.

It uncovers fresh allegations of additional corrupt behaviouer from Winston peters and his NZ First party.

Please note the bias from the Labour party speaker Margaret Wilson.

[Uncorrected transcript—subject to correction and further editing.]

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.

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—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. The member may not know any Latin, but the sub judice rule does not allow him to raise the matter in this House. I am fighting this case in the court—and doing rather well at the moment—and with the greatest respect TVNZ, Radio New Zealand, and ACT are not going to win inside this House. They have to come to court with me, and I am very happy to join them.

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker—

Rodney Hide: Can I finish my question now, Madam Speaker?

Madam SPEAKER: No.

Hon Bill English: There is a fairly important issue here. The member is clearly trying to stop a question being asked—and I have to say that the way in which he is doing it is one I have never quite seen before—but certainly it would be difficult if the House had to accept on the word of Mr Peters that this matter was sub judice, particularly when he is often involved in court cases more than other members. It could end up with the ridiculous situation where no questions could be asked, because a member has said that he or she was involved in a court case, if we are to go just on the member’s say-so, and some members may well be in the position where they are always involved in some kind of legal matters related to their own activities. So I think we need to be pretty careful in order to make sure that a member cannot be prevented from asking a question. It is one of the basic freedoms of this House.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Unfortunately, there is a limitation upon our freedom of speech in this House in relation to things that are sub judice. The issue here presumably is whether the matter being raised by Mr Hide is central to the matter that is in front of the court in terms of the defamation case. Now you are hearing, I think, from Mr Peters that what he is telling you is that the matter being raised is central to that defamation case. If so, then clearly it is sub judice and one cannot go around the back door by pretending that that matter has come from somewhere else and therefore is unrelated to the case before the court. I think Mr Hide really can tell the House whether, in his understanding, what Mr Peters is arguing is true, because if what Mr Peters is arguing is true, then the House should not be pursuing this matter at this point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There are numerous Speakers’ rulings with respect to the sub judice rule in this House that one may refer to an event of a case, but not the substance of it. Those are the previous rulings of this House. Mr Hide well knows that, so do his backers, and that is why, having lost in court, they seek to pursue it inside this House. They should be stopped from doing so.

Madam SPEAKER: I think the difficulty that has arisen is that Mr Hide could have asked the substance of his question without the elaboration that went on that would have, in fact, breached sub judice, if this matter—and I take the member’s word for it, because I have to, as we all do—is before the courts. So I am in a difficult position, because the question went on for so long. I understood the substance of it; it was to deal with a matter about independence of inquiries. Can the member, without reference to any specifics, ask the essence of the question?

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. There is nothing before the courts relating to this matter. Mr Peters himself said he thinks he has won something in the court, which again is news to everyone here. The matter I am referring to is not before the courts, and I think it is a sad day if you are going to shut down a question from a member of this House over a most important matter. I do not see why I should not be allowed to finish my question.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. I refer the member to Standing Order 111, and I will certainly take it away and look at it. I accept the member’s word that there is a matter revolving around these issues being raised that is before the court. I have to do that. If the member wishes to ask another question, please do so.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will you be telling the House tomorrow what matter is before the court that prevents me from asking the question?

Madam SPEAKER: No, the member knows that that is improper. That is not the case. I have said I will look at it. I take the member’s word. We all know that we take a member’s word. If there is a matter before the court I take the member’s word for it, as we do with other matters in this House. Now either the member asks a question or we move on.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: This is the last point of order on this matter.

Rodney Hide: Well, it is a difficult matter for me. I have waited patiently to ask my question today, as I am entitled to as a member of Parliament. What we have heard from Mr Peters is that there is some matter before the court. He has provided no elucidation as to what that matter is. You have told me you do not know what the case is, and you have told me that I can ask a question as long as it does not relate to some matter before the court of which no one in this House is aware. I would like you to ask Mr Peters to please explain what the matter is before the court that he is talking about.

Madam SPEAKER: As members well know it is the convention in this House that one takes a member’s word and there are consequences if, in fact, that word is proven otherwise not to be the case. That is the way in which it works.

Dr Russel Norman: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On the ruling you have just made around Standing Order 111, it is dependent on the Speaker taking the view that it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case. Could you please tell us what is that—

Madam SPEAKER: No, that is not the question, please; and I suggest a little bit more experience, if I can say before we end all this.

Rodney Hide: Does it concern the Prime Minister that a second business associate of Peter Simunovich has repeatedly said, unrelated to any court case, that he too wrote cheques for Peter Simunovich to New Zealand First, and kept the bank records just in case something went wrong; and what will it take for her to finally take my advice and to stand Winston Peters down so that his shonky dealings, secret trusts—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Mr Hide must surely have been looking in the mirror when he made those last comments. This is a man with a $2.8 million trust. But here is the point: this is a matter before the court. I took it seriously. I sued five different parties and I still am suing them. Before my lawyer left for overseas he advised me of the exact updated state of the case. Just to put the record straight, I say that in December last year it was found by the courts that there was a prima facie case for those parties to answer. That is where things stand at this point in time. Mr Hide cannot get away with that sort of allusion in this House, when the facts are before the court and they are sub judice.

Madam SPEAKER: I have made my ruling. I say to Rodney Hide that he can ask his question without referring to those matters. The substance of his question can be asked, but not in relation to those matters that are before the court.

Rodney Hide: No matters before the court are in my question.

Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I ask the member to please be seated. I will go through it one more time and that will be it. If my ruling is challenged again I will be asking the member to leave the House. We have taken the member’s word for it. I have said that the member Rodney Hide can ask the substance of his question, without specific reference to those particular matters, to which the Prime Minister can then reply. So I ask the member to do that, otherwise I will have to move on to the next question.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. If this whole issue hangs on your taking the word of a member, then which member are you taking the word of? Mr Hide has made it very clear that his question does not relate to a court case. We on this side of the House have some understanding of where things are at with this particular matter and concur with Mr Hide.

Madam SPEAKER: That is all very well, but I have taken the word of the member who is affected and who has the matter before the court—you are right. He is obviously the subject of the case.

Rodney Hide: Of course he is an honourable member—

Madam SPEAKER: I ask Mr Hide whether he has a question to ask.

Rodney Hide: To the Prime Minister—

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: How much are they paying you, Rodney?

Rodney Hide: Cheer up Michael. Does it concern her—

Hon Bill English: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am reluctant to intervene in this dispute, but the Deputy Prime Minister said across the House: “How much are they paying you?”. That is out of order when directed at any member of Parliament, but particularly in respect of asking a question.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I withdraw and apologise.

Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. On a number of occasions in the past I have raised allegations in Mr Hide’s presence that he receives, and has received in the past, outside payment—before, of course, the current rules came into force—and at no point in the past has he ever denied that.

Rodney Hide: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. Will I be allowed to ask my question now?

Madam SPEAKER: Not if you ask it in the way you asked it before, but you can ask the substance of it.

Rodney Hide: Well, let me try, because I do not know what substance you are objecting to.

Madam SPEAKER: The member is starting to trifle with the Speaker. If the member finds himself in that position, I suggest that he does not ask his question.

Rodney Hide: I am definitely going to ask my question.

Madam SPEAKER: OK, I call Rodney Hide.

Rodney Hide: Does it concern the Prime Minister that a former business associate of Peter Simunovich is on record—a record that I provided to the Serious Fraud Office—as making a complaint of corruption against her Minister of Foreign Affairs—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Point of order.

Rodney Hide: —stating that Peter Simunovich—

Madam SPEAKER: The member will please be seated. A point of order has been called. All members have rights of speech in this House, and we are hearing those rights exercised today.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you may have given six rulings to this member already. He is choosing to ignore them because his purpose is to get some sort of story out, false as it is, for the newspapers up the stairs to publish, regardless of the veracity or the truth of the matter. This matter is the subject of a court case. In fact, five defendants have been involved, and that still remains the case. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to ask the member for the last time to change his question, or to send him from the House.

Madam SPEAKER: I have asked the member, and this will be the last time.

Rodney Hide: I am going to ask my question, Madam Speaker. If you do not allow me to ask it, then you had better get me to leave now because I am entitled in this House to ask this question. Does it concern—

Madam SPEAKER: No, I am sorry. Please be seated. I have told the member; all members are entitled to ask questions that are consistent with the Standing Orders. That is all I am asking the member to do. I have ruled that his question, in the way it was phrased, is not consistent with the Standing Orders, but he can still ask the substance of the question. All I am asking him to do is comply with the Standing Orders.

Rodney Hide: Thank you. Let me ask precisely the substance of my question. Does it concern the Prime Minister that a former business associate of Peter Simunovich is on the record making a complaint of corruption against her Minister of Foreign Affairs—

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have given him now six or seven rulings. He simply stood up, the last time, to read out the question from the previous time you gave him a ruling. I think he is trifling with the Chair now and that he should be asked to leave the House.

Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I am also being persuaded of that point. So I am sorry, Mr Hide, I have made my ruling. I am not—

Hon Dr Nick Smith: Shameful!

Madam SPEAKER: No, it is not a shame; and that member will be asked to leave if he says that one more time. I am here to try to ensure that the Standing Orders are complied with and that the rule we abide by in terms of taking a member’s word is also abided by. Mr Hide is perfectly entitled to ask the substance of his question, and I have done this on many other occasions where I have said that to members and they have, in fact, complied. Now, if the member does not wish to do that, I suggest that he does not ask his question.

Rodney Hide: I am going to ask my question, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, then, I am sorry to do this. I really am sorry, but I will ask the member please to leave the House.

Rodney Hide: No. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: I have asked the member to leave the House. I have not denied you the right to ask your question.

Rodney Hide: You have.
Madam SPEAKER: I have merely said you ask that question consistent with the Standing Orders.
Rodney Hide: It is consistent.

Madam SPEAKER: Would the member please leave the House. Thank you.

Rodney Hide: This is an absolute disgrace that you have shut down an MP from asking a question. [Interruption]

Madam SPEAKER: Please leave. I call the Rt Hon Winston Peters.

Rodney Hide: I actually will not go, Madam Speaker, until I have my say.

Madam SPEAKER: Well, I am sorry. The member wants to think very carefully before he does that. I understand that he is not being denied the right to ask his question; it is merely to ask that question consistent with the Standing Orders. That is all that is asked, and the substance of it can be asked. Others members have to comply with those rules; Mr Hide I ask you to comply with them.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam SPEAKER: No, I have asked the member please to leave. Thank you.

Rodney Hide withdrew from the Chamber.

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. You have taken an extremely strong step today in denying Mr Hide the right to ask his question and you have relied heavily on the conventions of the House. Can I ask you to refer to Standing Order 111, “Matters awaiting judicial decision”, and ask why you have applied paragraph (c), which requires that such matters may not be referred to in any question, including a supplementary question, “if it appears to the Speaker that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case.” The particulars of this case are not unknown to members on this side of the House. It would be our position that there has been a travesty of justice here. Mr Hide has been done a wrong and the question should have been asked. The Hansard record will show that he used very simple words, heading in a particular direction, that had nothing to do with the court case that Mr Peters is relying on.

Hon Dr Michael Cullen: There are two issues, which may be related but actually need to be carefully separated. The first, and much more important, issue now, is respect for your authority as Speaker. Your authority was deliberately flouted. You gave rulings, on a number of occasions. Mr Hide refused to accept those rulings and continued to behave contrary to your rulings. You allowed him very, very significant leeway in that regard, because that matter occurred on a number of occasions. Any member of this House who behaved in that way, as frequently as that, sooner or later would be subject to the sanction that you have applied; and, indeed, given his subsequent behaviour, you would have been justified in the next stage of the sanctions being applied—that is, naming the member. All members in this House need to remind themselves that they are here to obey the authority of the Speaker when issues of that sort arise.
The second matter, of course, is the matter of judgment that you made about the sub judice rule. The member most closely involved in the case assured you that these matters were before the court. In all the time I have been in Parliament, Standing Order 111 has been interpreted very broadly to protect the court against Parliament’s discussing the matters before the court, unless there are actually very strong circumstances that might justify that occurring. You have clearly determined that that was not the case; it is not for the House now to question your judgment. If Mr Hide has other evidence, he may bring that evidence to you before tomorrow in the House, so that you may consider that evidence. But that is the way this place has to work. In essence it is like a game of rugby: sometimes a call may be made that one may dispute, but the dispute should not occur with the referee. The referee’s judgment is final, and we continue on from that point. This House cannot function unless we obey that rule.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I think you should know that when the National Party member Gerry Brownlee says what he says, he knows full well that one of his colleagues knows otherwise. He has lawyers in his party who could tell him otherwise, but, more important, this is a case where Mr Carter, his colleague, had his lawyer get up in court and say that at no time did he ever, associated with these allegations, mean to impugn Winston Peters, his integrity, or his honesty. That is what he argued.

Madam SPEAKER: Please be seated. I also do not need assistance, Mr Finlayson, on running this House. I thank you for your asides, but I would say that in future they are not necessary. I have said I would look at this matter, and I will look at the matter. Under those circumstances, we normally move on. Mr Hide would have ample opportunity tomorrow and the next day to be able to come back, in the light of that. He chose not to take that course of action. I now ask the House, can we please move on to the next question.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I would like a few supplementary questions myself.

Madam SPEAKER: That may well be the case, but you do not do it through a point of order.
Gerry Brownlee: Does she still accept all of the assurances that she has recently received from Winston Peters about the various allegations made against him?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: I have accepted the honourable member’s word, and will continue to do so unless something arises out of the Privileges Committee or some other appropriate authority that suggests I should not do so. But I do not have such information.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: If there was a subsequent series of cheques, paid some substantial time later, despite the fact that there was an inquiry in this House on a matter that concerned a business, and—here is the relevant point—those cheques were never cashed, therefore at no point could New Zealand First be seen—

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. I think you have well indicated to the House that this matter is sub judice and therefore questions cannot be asked about it.

Madam SPEAKER: I agree with you entirely. If the member has a question that is consistent with the Standing Orders he may ask it. If not, I suggest he does not ask it.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: Has the Prime Minister seen any reports in the weekend papers, written by former ACT MPs, confirming an undeclared gift of $20,000 per annum of free office space over several years, and further adding that the bill to refurbish the gifted office space, after ACT vacated it, was sent to Parliamentary Service for the taxpayer to pick up?

Gerry Brownlee: I raise a point of order, Madam Speaker. A supplementary question surely has to relate to the question that is asked. Mr Peters appears to be not only changing the tack of his question, but is now drifting right off the point.

Rt Hon Winston Peters: The member in his primary question referred to corruption. I am giving an example of it.

Madam SPEAKER: I would agree with the member. The question was quite broad in terms of those allegations, so I call the Rt Hon Prime Minister.

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Not only did I see reported the matter the member referred to, but I also saw the extraordinary report in the same article, that a property developer had paid around $20,000 for a photograph of Richard Prebble. That must be pretty close to constituting fraud.
Rt Hon Winston Peters: Would an example of the kind of thing Mr Hide alleges be the Asian chapter of the ACT party paying the legal costs to get rid of Donna Awatere Huata so that the ACT Asian candidate could replace her, to the tune of substantial money, and why was that not, under its rules, declared?

Rt Hon HELEN CLARK: Indeed the allegation was made in a Sunday newspaper by the former ACT member of Parliament that an Asian chapter of ACT was “pressured” to pay the legal bills of ACT with respect to Donna Awatere Huata because its candidate from the Asian chapter, Kenneth Wang, was next on the list and would benefit from Donna Awatere Huata’s departure from the House.