Winston Peters and the evidence

Why did Winston Peters say this?

The court that I will stand before is on Saturday, 8 November [election day]

Because it is the only court that does not hear evidence - and therefore adjudicators cannot make an informed decision. Unless they they read this and the related links on the sidebar.

Perhaps all these articles should be pasted on every polling booth wall in the country on November 8 so that we can rid our Parliament of corruption.

Susan Couch knows nothing about the Susan Couch Trust

updated
I have had word from someone who knows Susan Couch, with reference to the Susan Couch -Crime Victims Charitable Trust, which New Zealand First donated some of our money into.

I've been told that Susan Couch knows absolutely nothing about the Trust that bears her name. Apparently she doesn't even know why it bears her name. She has no details of it all, she has no idea what bank account it is, who arranged the bank account that the NZ First money went to, or apparently, whether she'll get any money from the Trust.

She thinks her name is potentially tarnished. If her name is tarnished, someone will be very angry.

Sounds like the trust was initiated without her knowledge. Yet Winston Peters know more about where the money is than Couch does - even though its not his trust. Imagine the outcry if Peters was to give our money to the For the Sake of our Children Trust and he could unequivically tell you two months later without contacting the trust that the money is still in the trust's bank account gathering interest.

What is good is that "a lot of good kiwis have backed Sue and helped her finance the court costs she is taking against the Government, so at least she's not going to be out of pocket" for suing the Government.

As an aside, a few people are going to Winston Peters site and making comments - but only the ones who think he done a marvelous job in helping Susan Couch get loads of money are getting their comments approved. None of mine have been approved.

The Couch Trust was not formed when Peters declared his donation to the Speaker.

With reference to this, Kiwiblog readers have been doing some investigation. Here is the application for the Susan Couch - Crime Victims Charitable Trust. It was only signed on the 15th of August and registered as a Trust on 10 September. But that was after Winston Peters announced the donations, and after he told Speaker Margaret Wilson who the donations were going to.

Is this another Spencer Trust - set up for a large NZ First donation? Did Wilson keep the list of beneficiaries private because she knew that no application had been accepted by the Companies Office for the Couch Trust at the time. She would know that money can be put aside for a trust awaiting to be registered - but more importantly, this money could not be returned by the trustees at the time as they were not formally trustees. Was Wilson aware that the trustees were to be Peters' lawyers?

Two of the three Trustees are Winston’s personal lawyers – his solicitor and his barrister! Garth McVicar from the Sensible Sentencing Trust actually found Brian Henry and introduced him to Susan Couch to help her sue the crown although he was not aware he was Peters' lawyer at that time.

Half the $158,000 has gone to a trust run by Peters' lawyers.There is no reference to Susan Couch in the trust deed, except being the name of the trust. Couch is not listed as the Patron or as a beneficiary (charitable trusts don't have beneficiaries), and the three Trustees have total power over the Trust. So how can it be administered on behalf of her?

Winston Peters said "We were pleased to donate the money to a trust that could assist her".

It could assist her. But will it? She's got no money yet, Winston Peters said so. Sounds like a lawyers charity setup for Peters' donation to me.

NZ First names a charity that got some of our $158k

Winston Peters has revealed that $76k of our money went to a charitable trust for a person whose lawyer is Peters' lawyer, Brian Henry. The trust is administered on behalf of Susan Couch, who is currently suing the Corrections Department. Couch is the survivor of the RSA triple murder.

So, here we have a lawyer that doesn't charge for services rendered to Winston Peters, no doubt getting a cut from another trust set up on behalf of a person he is also a lawyer for. All thanks to a tax-payer funded donation by a Government minister to a trust set up on behalf of someone who is suing the Government.

The privileges committee report

Yes, I've read the privileges committee's report on the Winston Peters circus and can't be bothered commenting on it unless I find anything of interest. They have recommended Peters be censured by the House because he lied to and misled all and sundry. They'll vote on it tomorrow and tell Winston Peters that he's a naughty boy.

But I will state that Peters received a number of donations amounting to $40,000 that he used to pay off a loan that was used to pay Brian Henry. Peters has to relinquish that gift unless Helen Clark decides that Peters can keeps it.

You can read more about that n Farrar's good quick analysis but beware of the quality of comments.

Ex-minister link man between Peters and doners

So Winston Peters has got support from the doner kebab industry now?

...Ahhhh, subbing.

The people who ru(i)n our country

Michael Cullen has refused to say he has confidence in the Serious Fraud Office (SFO), after its head, Grant Liddell, was before the Privileges Committee today.

As you know, the SFO is investigating the country's Foreign Affairs Minister for fraud. Winston Peters is still the Foreign Affairs Minister but has had his portfolios stripped pending the investigation. The problem is that Michael Cullen is also the Attorney General, - chief law officer and primary legal advisor of the New Zealand government - despite having no legal qualifications whatsoever. Liddell reports to the Attorney General.

He did so again today.

Liddell addressed his boss, the Attorney General with no legal training - but only because said boss is not only the country's Deputy Prime Minister, he is a member of the said Privileges Committee that is discussing possible fraudulent behaviour of a former Deputy Prime Minister and Treasurer who does have law degree and is now the Foreign Affairs Minister. The investigation is over a donation the Foreign Affairs Minster received in his role as a political party leader in 2005 but failed to declare it as required by law. The person who had donated the money had earlier funded the Attorney General's political party to the extent that it won the last election and became the Government - which is why the said Attorney General is still the Deputy Prime Minister.

But after Grant Liddell has addressed the Privileges Committee, his own boss, the Attorney General, refused to say whether he had confidence in the Serious Fraud Office, while earlier refusing to advise his own boss that the fraudulent Foreign Affairs Minister should be sacked.

This boss so happens to be the Prime Minister who is also the boss of the said Foreign Minister. But she has not only got the fraudulent Foreign Affairs Minister's portfolios, she is trying to get his party supporters to vote for her party at the next election because that Foreign Affairs Minister's donor won't give her party any more money, and musician Chris Knox won't sing "It's a bitter way with Labour, way bitter" any more.

But that hasn't worked very well as a political poll just out had the said Foreign Minister's political party doubling in support, and Labour falling.

So there you have it.

Clark will "let the process continue"

Helen Clark says she will hold off firing Winston Peters until the Serious Fraud Office and the police has completed their investigations into the Winston Peter's saga.

Because Michael Cullen told her to.

Which is precisely what I have been saying all month and on Monday said

Despite whatever the privileges committee says, Peters will still keep his ministerial warrants because the SFO and police will not have completed their investigations before the election. Due process extends as far as the Prime Minster wants it to, which is why she's happy to use the SFO and police as political pawns to extend that process. Nothing is a firing offence in this government unless it is politically expedient to do so.

The reason Cullen advised the Prime Minister so was because he wants people to think that Helen Clark still can't make up her mind which version of events is true.

Peter Dunne, who is on the committee, appeared annoyed that Henry cannot recall much. He put the proposition to Henry that he was not recalling things because to do so would create further embarrassment for Peters. Of course Cullen won't be asking to have the truth clarified.

The PM is deciding nothing. It is Cullen that is making the decisions and the PM is merely agreeing with him. Clark won't make any decision before the SFO report comes out.

updateThat decision not to make a decision is the only decision Clark has made in this saga since she suspended Peters.

Henry has told the truth

Updated midday
This is big news. Brian Henry lied to the privileges committee when he denied that it was Winston Peters who was his "client" in an email to Owen Glenn on 14 December 2005.

Henry and Peters have changed their stories and Henry has conceded the "client" was Winston Peters.

He made the admission in an appearance before Parliament's privileges committee via video-link today.

Last week, Owen Glenn produced phone records showing he talked to Peters on December 14, 2005. Soon after Henry sent Glenn an email with his bank details.

Glenn produced that e-mail to the select committee, and it showed Henry referred to the phone conversation with "my client" at the precise time of the phone call.

Mr Henry has previously denied the "client" was Mr Peters but today he said the pair's recollection of events was poor and their earlier story did not now seem correct.

In other words, they have been caught out lying and Winston Peters has instructed his lawyer not to lie anymore because the lies cannot be seen as credible anymore. Is this the end of Henry's career or is perjury allowed if you work for "free"?

I wonder what the party's Kaikoura electorate chairman thinks of this.

But Clark won't sack Peters, unless she considers this news meets the test of "devastating". She should, but probably won't.

Well done Rodney Hide.

Breaching the cabinet manual is not a firing offence

post has been updated
Ian Wishart has been advised that Winston Peters has breached the Cabinet Manual again for not getting approval for a trip to Las Vegas to see a boxing match. The Hive and Hooton say this is a sackable offence.

I disagree. It is not a firing offence unless the Prime Minister says it is. If it was, Winston Peters would already be fired. The Cabinet Manual - like the Cabinet itself, has no basis in legislation. The former is a guideline and the latter a constitutional convention. In the forward to the Cabinet Manual, Helen Clark says:

The Cabinet Manual guides Cabinet's procedure. The Cabinet Manual is an authoritative guide to central government decision making for Ministers, their offices, and those working within government. It is also a primary source of information on New Zealand's constitutional arrangements, as seen through the lens of the executive branch of government. Successive governments have endorsed the Cabinet Manual as a sound, transparent, and proven basis on which to operate.I urge all those working in government to use the new Cabinet Manual and follow the guidance it contains.

It also says that ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour and must behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold the highest ethical standards.

So, low ethical standards and a complete disregard for the Cabinet Manual is not a firing offence. If it was, Helen Clark would be hypocritical in remaining as Prime Minister if she sacked Winston Peters because of a breach of the manual.

update Wishart was also told that the PM didn't know about Peters' detour until two weeks ago, but was that because that information was withheld from her by officials, or did she actually know and the PMs press secretary didn't bother to check with the PM before responding to Wishart?

Guess whose house is on the market?

Does Winston Peters have to find another place to cook his scampi? Does Catcus Kate think Jan Trotman is giving him the short shrift? Has trotting become more important than Trotman to Peters? Is Winston Peters really List MP with no fixed abode?

Or don't they actually need four bedrooms and four carparks.

Reasons to dump Winston Peters

Garth George has outlined eignt more reasons to dump Clark.
However Matthew Hooton has a reason to dump Peters and its better than George's eight reasons to dump Clark combined. It has nothing to do with the Privileges Committee hearing, and everything to do with Winston Peters' behaviour - although the hearing does reflect Peters' past behaviour.

The Cabinet Office Manual is quite clear that “Ministers are accountable to the Prime Minister for their behaviour“. People are Ministers because the Prime Minister has confidence in them, and for no other reason. It is the sole basis of them being Ministers.

It is the Prime Minister’s job, again according to the Cabinet Office Manual, to ensure her Ministers ”behave in a way that upholds, and is seen to uphold, the highest ethical standards“. It is not possible that Clark believes Peters has met this standard. At the very least, he cannot possibly any longer be seen to have upheld the highest ethical standards. It is therefore not possible that a Prime Minister doing their job would continue to have confidence in him.

It is Helen Clark’s job as Prime Minister to act on her own judgement. It is not about “natural justice” or “due process”. If she no longer wants the responsibility that comes with that job, she should act on another section of the Cabinet Office Manual, and advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and hold a general election on the soonest possible date.

But the Cabinet Manual is irrelevant, as if you break these rules there are no consequences. Helen Clark only obeys laws when there are consequences for not doing so. That's her standard.

Winston Peters will keep the country honest

New Zealanders need New Zealand First to keep the country honest, somebody said today.

See who it was that said that.

My position hasn't changed and won't change. If Winston says he didn't ask for money then he didn't. I think in the end it will straighten out. New Zealand First policies were set in stone, rather than being designed to "vote catch", he said.

"How would you feel about John Key selling New Zealand to the Chinese? That's what this is about ... New Zealanders need New Zealand First there to keep New Zealand honest.He believed the party would not suffer from the donations controversy.

What happened on December 14, 2005?

NB: BBC story on Winston Peters here

The Greens got its ETS bill passed under urgency, not because the Government wanted other bills passed before recess, but in case Winston Peters gets sacked today. He may. He should. He provided no evidence to the privileges committee last night that convincingly rebutted Owen Glenn's statements.

I think the whole thing comes down to one date. December 14, 2005. On that date Owen Glenn called Winston Peters. Owen Glenn says he talked money, Winston Peters said he didn't talk money, but about Glenn wanting "a roving ambassadorship with emphasis on trade... similar to Mike Moore".

Do you believe that?

Shortly after, Peters' lawyer Brian Henry's bank account was sent to Owen Glenn, on "behalf of my client". If Brian Henry can't name that client as someone other than Winston Peters, Helen Clark has no reason not to sack Winston Peters. But because Henry hasn't provided those details, despite being asked, and neither has Peters, we'll have to wait until Tuesday when Henry gets called before the committee again.

But Henry won't state that information as nobody can prove it either way. But this mess has caused so much damage to the Government that Michael Cullen - who is on the privileges committee - should not wait til Tuesday but recommend that Helen Clark should really sack Winston Peters today.

But she won't sack him today. Or tomorrow. Or the next day. Or the day after, etc.

Update I've just seen this on Stuff. Key issues remain unresolved. Hence no sacking. Helen Clark is using due process to avoid sacking Winston Peters -which is, I suspect, was the only reason Margaret Wilson decided that he should go the the privileges committee to start with - and Wilson delayed that decision so that due process would last beyond the ETS legislation.

Update 2 Here's the PMs Press statement. The refusal to sack Winston Peters has been reported as far away as France and Thailand as well as Austria.

Why self serving Helen Clark is corrupt

It is quite clear that Helen Clark is keeping Winston Peters on so she can pass her ETS bill tonight. The bill is at the top of the order paper - at least the draft version (thanks Keeping Stock for saving me some time). I predict the self-serving Clark wants to sack Peters shortly after the bill is passed, which looks likely to be while Peters is giving evidence to the Privileges Committee tonight.

National should delay the final vote as munch as they can by filibustering. If it doesn’t I’ll interpret that to mean that it is voting against a bill it supports.

Whatever, we don’t have representative democracy anymore. We have a president of the main Government party and a Foreign Minister who are proven liars, and a PM who thinks it is unfortunate that someone like Owen Glenn is telling the truth. Clark doesn't mind people who lie as long as they are not found out. She'll probably sack Winston Peters tonight because he got found out. Not because he lied.

Hiding the truth is not a sackable offence, neither is lying. You dont even get told off for lying. Not in New Zealand's government. Being found out for hiding the truth is not sackable offence either, neither is being caught lying. But being caught out lying in a court or a privileges committee - both of which can send people to jail - is the only sackable offence, as it is deemed worse than being cought lying outside the system.

But it is only sackable if you don't need the guilty person to pass legislation.

The above is the reason why Mike Williams did not appear before the privileges committee. Williams would be sacked.

Helen Clark's principles are screwed.

The PM knew Peters was lying

Winston Peters claims he never knew about any $100,000 donation from Owen Glenn until July last year. But today, Owen Glenn produced a phone log at a Privileges Committee hearing, showing he rang Mr Peters at 11:26am on December 14, 2005 and talked for six minutes and 41 seconds. Then Brian Henry sent Owen Glenn the details of his bank account to pay the hundred grand.

Whale Oil has the affidavits online here..

Peters lied to the PM and must be sacked.

Helen Clark didn't want to tell you that she knew that Peters was lying. She also didn't want you to know that she rang Mike Williams four times in one day in June this year he was on Owen Glenn's yacht trying to screw him for more money.

Owen Glenn said that Mike Williams rang him and told him in December 2005 that [video] the Labour party didn't object to Glenn giving $100,000 to NZ First. Helen Clark must have known that there was no "innocent explanation". If she knew about the donation back in December 2005 as Mike Williams told her about it, Clark, too, has lied to the country by saying she only found out about the donation earlier this year when Owen Glenn told her.

Matthew Hooten says there now seems little doubt that the Owen Glenn donations to New Zealand First were orchestrated by the highest level of the Labour Party.

That much can be said after Owen Glenn's appearance before the committee today.

This is from The Herald

Owen Glenn said Peters called and left a message on his telephone service on December 5, 2005. Glenn said he returned the call and Peters asked for financial assistance.He then checked with Labour Party president Mike Williams whether it would assist Labour, as that was his only intention.He had thought Williams would have told his colleagues.Williams took some time to get back him and Glenn assumed that this was to make sure Labour did not object.

Michael Cullen asked whether the person talked like Mr Peters usually did.Mr Glenn repeated that he was very sure. "I knew it wasn't you Dr Cullen...you already had your $500,000."

Owen Glenn testifies against Winston Peters

This summarises the ODT report .

Glenn was emailed by former National MP Roger McClay on August 3 2005 to set up a meeting. The following day Glenn emailed Williams and Sir Howard Morrison asking their views on Mr Peters. A meeting went ahead and Glenn then wrote to Mr Williams on August 13. He said he had a "very informative hour with the charismatic Winstone (sic) Peters."On ugust 22, Glenn wrote to McClay again,saying it was a pleasure meeting Mr Peters and regretted he could not assist "at this time".

On December 5, a Glenn staffer emailed Williams about a message Peters left on Glenn's answer machine. An email December 12 email then talked about what day Glenn and Williams could meet.A Telstra phone bill showed a call to Peters' cellphone lasting 6min 41sec from Glenn at 11.26am on December 14.

The next emails - the same day - are between Glenn and Peters' lawyer Brian Henry about the account into which the money was to be banked. One comment from Henry clearly referred to the phone call between Peters and Glenn: "further to your discussion with my client at 1.30 NZT..."

On December 20, Glenn says he had instructed the bank and the money would be there within three to four days.Other evidence was about which year Mr Peters and Mr Glenn met at the Karaka sales. Glenn always maintained it was 2006 and Mr Peters has since said he is unsure. In an email on January 31, 2006, Mr Glenn wrote to two men talking about his upcoming lunch with Peters at Karaka.An affidavit from Paul Moroney, a bloodstock consultant and racehorse trainer, said he was at the lunch and witnessed Peters thanking Glenn for his help to him.

More lies from NZ First revealed

On Wednesday I asked this, regarding the NZ First donations

I wonder how much money that should have been declared to Electoral Authorities was part of the repayment of $158,000 that was sitting in a NZ First bank account generating interest for a year before being distributed to undisclosed charities?

We got some of that answer in today's papers.The donation that spurred Winston Peters' infamous "no" press conference was $80,000, was paid last December, and went towards the $158,000 for wrongful spending at the last election. Is that what the Velas paid money to NZ First for? If so, do they have the right to ask which charities it went to? Did it actually go to charities, despite Margaret Wilson saying that she has received the names of the charities - or was that list a lie too, and Peters has misled the speaker as well?. Maybe the list of charities is a list that Peters didn't give to?

So although the $80,000 wasn't sitting in the NZ First bank account for a year, this undeclared donation has generated several thousand dollars worth of interest. Now it is generating interest of another kind, not just because it wasn't declared but because nobody seems to know who has got it now. And I believe Helen Clark knows a lot more about what went on than she has revealed to date, which is why she doesn't want to appear before the privileges committee or honestly answer these two questions.

Have you been told what charities received a total of $158,000, and do you know if they received the money?
Have you been made aware if Mike Williams approached Owen Glenn or Brian Henry with relation to financially supporting Winston Peters' petition against Bob Clarkson. If so, when, and to whom was that approach made?.

And I agree with No Minister in that Labour president Mike Williams needs to go before the privileges committee. He needs to explain Labour's involvement in getting Owen Glenn's support for Winston Peters' petition against Bob Clarkson in 2005, because Glenn gave the money to NZ First as he was a Labour supporter. He should be asked if -and when - he gave Brian Henry Owen Glenn's phone number and whether he suggested to Glenn that he give money to NZ First's petition. And Winston should be asked when he got that phone number from Brian Henry.

Honest answers will give the Serious Fraud Office something more to do and reveal systemic corruption once the ducks - Mike, Helen and Winston ( and ducklings Brian Henry and Margaret Wilson) - are in a row and the dots are joined.

Is it a big deal if you break the law if you are an amateur and have Ministerial connections?

note: post retitled to reflect post content
Helen Clark has has accepted NZ First’s word that NZ First made a mistake in not declaring the $50,000 to the Electoral authorities - but it is no big deal because NZ First is an amateur organisation

Miss Clark said she was taking NZ First’s explanation at face value: “They’re a small party with a rather amateur organisation, these things can happen.

I’m a small individual with a rather amateur car. If I make a mistake and go a bit too fast and get caught speeding, can I say it was a mistake if I have to go to court to pay a fine? And like NZ First redeclaring its illegal 2005 Election return, could I reverse really fast on the same area of road to undo the lawbreaking?

Or if I get caught smacking my kids - as it is against the law - and get hauled before the courts, could I say "I'm an amateur parent, with a rather small family, these things can happen."

Or would I only get off lawbreaking if I was associated with a Minister of the Crown, like David Cunliffe did when he smacked his kids.

A mistake - yeah right

I very much doubt that the non declaration of the $50,000 donation to NZ First as mentioned in a previous post was an administative mistake.. Perhaps being found out was the mistake. Anyone who had looked at the Spencer Trust account would know about this money going to NZ First - including Winston Peters as soon as he became " aware" of the Trust. The fact that NZ First has claimed to have only a couple of donations over $10,000 over the past 10 or so years does not sound convincing as the bank statement from the Spencer Trust shows three in as many weeks.

Now that we know that there is a donation that was not declared, will Helen Clark comment on this illegal behavior, or is illegality only deemed to be wrong if one is able to be prosecuted? I wonder how much money that should have been declared to Electoral Authorities was part of the repayment of $158,000 that was sitting in a NZ First bank account generating interest fora year before being distributed to undisclosed charities?

I'd be willing to bet that there have been no donations under $10,000 that went to the Spencer Trust as this trust appears to be set up for the purpose of subverting electoral laws.That is not a mistake - but I wonder how many other administrative mistakes were made.

Update Helen Clark and Winston Peters are refusing to comment on Winston Peters' lies to the public and to the PM - leaving other NZ First MPs to do the talking. Clark knew Peters lied from early days - she certainly knows now that he lied - but she doesn't want to seek the "innocent explanation" she claims is the answer to solving this, because she knows there is no innocent explanation.