2nd Owen Glenn Letter

The second letter from Owen Glenn refuting Winston Peters claims in the media and a written reply to Glenn's first letter of explanation over the Peters $100,000 donations.

The three letters have been submitted to the Privileges Committee as evidence.

Glenn here reiterates his initial letter and makes clear the unreliable claims made by Peters over dates, an appearance at a race meeting and the people involved.

Glenn will give evidence in person to the Privileges Committee on Tuesday but it is likely Peters lawyer, Peter Williams and Peters himself will try and disrupt the hearing as much as possible as they did this morning.

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

27th August, 2008

Dear Mr Power

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

I refer to my letter of 19 August and to the reply to it of Rt Hon Mr Winston Peters MP dated 26 August.

First, I confirm that the letter sent to you on 19 August was from me, but was unsigned because of the difficulty I had at the time with the location of a fax machine. The Clerk of the house was asked whether a signed copy was needed. This was not responded to. I attach with this letter a signed copy of the letter of 19 August, to tidy that aspect up accordingly.

Second, I would like to affirm to you the correctness of what I have said to you in my letter of 19 August, and to comment on some of the observations that Rt Hon Mr Peters has made in his letter to you of 26 August.

(a) I gave the authority for the payment instructions to be made on 20 December 2005 to Mr BP Henry's account. Mr Henry supplied the ASB bank account details in an email from him addressed to me on Wednesday 14 December 2005. That email from Mr Henry refers to an earlier telephone conversation between me and a person Mr Henry refers to as "my client" that same day. My recollection is that I was called by Mr Peters to seek financial assistance for his electoral petition challenge. I agreed to that request because I understood that it would be of assistance to the Labour party, which had the confidence and supply agreement with New Zealand First at the time we spoke. I do not recall that I had any conversation with Mr Henry about my donation. There is absolutely no doubt that the request came to me from Mr Peters, I would not have made the donation on any other basis through any intermediary. I did not do so.

(b) I believe that I first met Mr Peters at 3pm in Sydney on Friday 12 August at the Four Seasons Hotel. My personal assistant was with me at the meeting. I have no recollection of meeting him at an earlier time but it is possible.

(c) I was not at the Karaka sales in early 2007, I was at the sales in early 2006. I believe that the statement I made to you in my letter of 19 August is factually accurate.

I am happy to respond to any further questions from you, if that would be helpful.

Yours faithfully,

Owen G. Glenn

Related Political Animal reading

Ist Owen Glenn Letter to Privileges Committee

Winston Peters Letter to Privileges Committee

c Political Animal 2008

I smell something very unfunny

The bullshit from Winston Peters is set to continue this morning.

The Privileges Committee that is looking into secret donations from Owen Glenn to Winston Peters/NZ First sits again and will apparently hear new written evidence from Owen Glenn and clearly yet more bullshit from Peters.

It has been rumoured that Glenn will appear in person before the Committee next week.

Since the committee sat last Thursday Peters and his party has been beset by a slew of new donation revelations and more bullshit from Winnie supporters to explain these revelations away.

The more time passes, the closer Winston's initial lies and denials over getting money from Glenn, the Vela Brothers, Bob Jones and probably yours truly(I forget) cant withstand scrutiny.

More lies and excuses have had to be spun to explain away the inconsistencies of previous bullshitting.

The latest revelation earlier this week from Peter Brown, NZ First MP and Winnie's bed mate, was that office staff had "make a mistake" over $50000.00 of donations made to the party in 2005 and not declared and therefore that is the end of the matter.

Id like to know the name of the auditor blamed and hear what he has to say.

The stink over that cow dung is extruded to great lengths even further because Prime Minister Helen Clark believes that the explanation from Brown is plausible and things are just hunky dory.

Perhaps the fact that Ms Clark's Labour Party are now passing multiple poorly drafted and fraudulently intentioned laws(the Emissions Trading(TAX) Bill and Bio-fuels Bill two glaring examples)under urgency and she needs Peters vote to get them through, has something to do with her complicity in the face of the cow pats raining down on her from her support Party.

Meanwhile Bauble Boy Peters has been stood down from office but still receives the $500 a day salary, expenses, ministerial limo and car and various taxpayer funded support staff.

From an individual who said before the 2005 election that he would "not take the baubles of office" over his political principles(I'm doubled up and writhing on the floor with laughter at this point) it is clear that it is only the Baubles that now exist.

It is time that Winston Peter's Baubles were taken in hand and removed by Clark but because her political future is in doubt she is afraid to grab them.

And that just stinks.

c Political Animal 2008

BILL ENGLISH.co.nz: Election watchdog says law is unenforceable

National Party Deputy Leader Bill English says the Electoral Commission has confirmed that Labour's Electoral Finance Act is unenforceable and has had a 'chilling' impact on our democracy.

"The admissions from Dr Helena Catt at a conference yesterday are worrying in the extreme.

"As New Zealanders head to the polls, the Electoral Commission is effectively saying it is unable to promise that the law will be properly policed or applied. That is the direct consequence of Labour's decision to railroad the law into place with the support of New Zealand First and the Greens.

"The EFA, like the controversial Emissions Trading Scheme, had hundreds of amendments that the public had no chance to comment on."

Dr Catt said of the EFA that:

• Implementation planning and process development had to begin while the shape of the final legislation was unclear. The significant changes to the Bill at Select Committee, and a lack of time between enactment and commencement also meant that interpretive and practical implications could not be worked through in advance of the law being in force.

• It is clear that having uncertainty remaining within the regulated period has had a chilling effect on the extent and type of participation in political and campaign activity … The meanings of significant sections of the legislation are obscure.

• The commission is not confident that it will be able to reach informed positions on the interpretation of some provisions within the election period, and notes that the situation is exacerbated by the legal reality that it cannot finally determine questions of whether, for instance, an item is an election advertisement.

"The Electoral Commission has confirmed National's worst fears. The voices of those who want to participate in our democracy have been silenced, and just a few months out from the election, watchdogs still don't know what an election advertisement is.

"When it came to election laws, Labour put self-serving politics ahead of good, enduring policy. With the ETS, history is repeating."

Seleted Political Animal Electoral Finance Act coverage

Labour first to break own Electoral Finance Act
2008 Electoral Finance Act protest
Electoral Finance Act March Mar 9, 2008
Electoral Finance Bill VoteNZ losses democratic freedom
Mike Moore turns the knife
List of MPs who voted for Act
Cartoon and comment
2007 Auckland Protest against EFB
The purpose of the Bill is clear

Links c Political Animal 2007 & 2008

ACT PRESS RELEASE: Rodney Hide-Emissions Trading Bill speech

One of the best speeches made in parliament this year.


Wednesday, 3 September 2008, 9:44 am Speech: ACT New Zealand

Press Release

Climate Change (Emissions Trading And Renewable Preference) Bill

Rodney Hide MP Tuesday, september 2 2008

Speech to Parliament; Tuesday, September 2 2008

I think I will be the only person speaking in this debate who has any qualifications in environmental science.

It is not that that should count, but I think that it is significant for what I am about to say—that is, that the entire climate change - global warming hypothesis is a hoax, that the data and the hypothesis do not hold together, that Al Gore is a phoney and a fraud on this issue, and that the emissions trading scheme is a worldwide scam and swindle.

Enacting this legislation will cost New Zealanders dear—that is the point of it - and it will drive up the costs of basic goods and services for New Zealanders probably by at least $500 or $600 a year.

It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business, and put farmers off their farms. It will put businesses in New Zealand out of business. It will put farmers off their farms. And it will do all this for no impact on world weather, for no environmental gain, and for no conceivable advantage to New Zealand or to the world.

Yes, it is bad that we are rushing this legislation through in the dying days of a teetering regime, propped up by a *Minister of Foreign Affairs who is under investigation for serious and complex fraud.

That is bad, but it is the impact that this legislation and this policy will have on New Zealanders that is so truly shocking. All we have in this is a computer model. That is notoriously difficult, because the answers are written in the assumptions. Let me give members just one example.
The problem for the first two Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change reports was what was called the medieval warming period, where a thousand years ago the Earth was warmer than it is now.

Then, magically, an obscure physicist in the US came up with a new bit of analysis - the hockey stick - that showed world temperature to be flat and then rising dramatically as the world became industrialised. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change grabbed this, put it on the front of its document, and repeated it five times.

Researchers all around the world were puzzled by this, because it did not fit any of their data. Eventually they got hold of that computer model and they discovered this: any numbers fed into that model would produce the hockey stick.

We could take the Wellington telephone directory, feed it into the model that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used in 2001, and we would get the hockey stick that saw the world running scared, that saw policy-makers running scared, and saw Al Gore make his movie based on it.

The science was rubbish, because a computer model is not science. Science is about theories, hypothesis, and the testing of these against the facts. That is not what has happened in the basic science here. That is bad enough, but what is worse is the policy rationale underpinning this legislation. The Minister would come before the select committee and talk about a "cap and trade" but, when asked, would say: "Yes, there is no cap." We are creating a market in hot air, without any quantified amount.