
Unfortunately the NBR story is in the paid section of the paper, to which we do not subscribe. But it contains a revealing quote from Winston Peters and his lawyer Brian Henry; check this out:
Mr Henry said he was unaware of the other charities who received $78,000 from New Zealand First.
"I never knew what was done there. That's something you'd have to ask [Mr Peters] about. I think he regards it as done and dusted and closed."
Mr Peters said the eight other charities were all paid but declined to reveal which organisations received donations. "I am not going to give this information over." he said.
"Why are you calling me about this nine days before an election? I think it's a disgrace."
Unfortunately for Winston Peters, there are many other people who think that it's a disgrace too, and we are amongst that number. It's a disgrace that NZ First still has not repaid THE TAXPAYER the $158,000 that the Auditor-General found had been used illegally. It's a disgrace that Winston Peters misled Parliament over the Owen Glenn donation. It's a disgrace that Winston Peters still refuses to disclose who NZ First made donations to, supposedly in lieu of repaying the taxpayer.
But the biggest disgrace of all is that the $78,000 supposedly donated to assist Susan Couch, the innocent victim of a horrific crime lies dormant, and that Winston Peters blusters and obfuscates when questioned about it.
*************************************
The NZ First Party mis-spent $158,000 of taxpayer funds at the 2005 election. Winston Peters obfuscated, mis-spoke and misled the public over this issue. He tried to make a donation to Starship Hospital in lieu of repayment, but Starship sensibly told NZ First that it didn't want Winston's filthy lucre.
The old fox then made a number of charity donations, without disclosing amounts or charities. However one charity did become public knowledge; the Susan Couch - Crime Victims Charitable Trust. NZ First made a donation of $78,000 to this trust.
Susan Couch was the sole survivor of the Mt Wellington RSA robbery in 2001 where three of her co-workers were murdered by William Bell. She suffered massive injuries, from which she has only partially recovered. If anyone is a victim of crime, it is Susan Couch. As recently as June 2010, David "Happy Feet" Farrar blogged about her housing plight.
Has Susan Couch benefitted from the trust established in her name? The answer to that would appear to be a resounding "no". The trust has just filed its annual return to the Charities Commission, and although the trust has assets in endowment funds of $85,495, it only made grants of $1151 in the year ended 31 March 2011. Does New Zealand have that few victims of crime?
Or is there another answer? Was this simply a cynical ploy by Winston Peters and NZ First to deflect attention away from their illegal electioneering? Given the track record of the man involved, nothing would surprise. Don't forget; one of the last acts of Winston Peters' parliamentary career was to sit in the House whilst the 48th Parliament debated and passed a motion to censure him for "knowingly providing false or misleading information on a return of pecuniary interests" in September 2008, shortly before the House rose for the 2008 election, when Peters and his party were swept from the corridors of power.
We make no apologies for our cynicism with regard to Winston Peters. We sincerely hope that NZ First is not re-elected on 26 November 2011. And above all, we hope that the trust established in the name of Susan Couch, a victim of a heinous crime actually provides some financial support to the woman after whom it is named. For a substantial amount of money to sit idle whilst a victim continues to battle every day with life is an absolute travesty of justice.
18 comments:
"The old fox then made a number of charity donations"
Inv - you omit the word alledgedly after then.
So far we only have the word of a known liar (Peters) that the donations were made.
iv2 can you alert the VRWC to hit these fuckers hard.
http://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-19092011/#comment-376448
Are the trustees still those involved with Peters who set the trust up. See these posts from Kiwiblog http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/tag/dennis_gates
Am I reading the return correctly - the trust had no income from interest, just $53 in donations?
It would appear so Ele; I'd say they are getting terrible investment advichere is no return on more than $80k invested. Unless the interest is going somewhere else...
Winny is the Labour/Greens only chance of getting into Govt this year .. what a dodgy lot
Hmm, mis-spent $158,000, eh. That tired old fairy story again. Can you explain please how come if they nicked 158 grand, three investigations and three audits by the Electoral Commission, the Police, and the SFO, all found no wrongdoing and no grounds to prosecute anyone?
Winston has told so many lies that he wouldn't know the truth if it hit him on the head.
As IV2 mentioned over at Kiwiblog he uses obfuscation and twisting of words to tell his untruths. It defeats me who the heck votes for this fool.
I suspect Lindsay that the people who are voting for him are hoping to stop asset sales. Have a read of the Dim Post
Remember when Winston was last in Parliament Margaret Wilson was the speaker, and how Winston ran riot with his buffoonery and time-wasting pointless points-of-order?
Let's suppose the coalition of the left wins, who will be Speaker? And where would that leave their majority?
Will those who want mavericks to kick the dignity of our Parliament in the shins get their wish?
Would Lockwood Smith's (the best Speaker in living memory) honourable desire for an orderly and respected Debating Chamber see him accept the Poison Chalice if offered?
This election could yet become MMP's finest hour.
Colmar Brunton have Winnie at about 2% so at this stage I'm not getting too het up about the digipoll result.
HP it appears the trustees of the trust are keeping the capital in a tin under the bed. The Registrar of Charities will be looking at the activites or lack of them of this trust with some suspicion.
Flash the squirrell
I am not sure what planet you have been living on. The Auditor-General investigated. The Auditor General found that the money had been mis spent. Peters took advantage of the then government's "Theft Legalisation Act" which retrospectively validated the misappropriation of public money. Peters never accepted the Auditor-General ruling so he decided to ignore it. He took advantage of the retrospective legislation but, in the face of public pressure, said that he would donate the money to charity. Starship rejected the donation as, I recall, that a number of other charities.
It is not an old chestnut. Peters misappropriated public money and refuses to give it back.
Panic stations!
Further to Nookin, Peters escaped on the dodgy returns for election 2005 (spencer trust) purely because the statute of limitations had passed by time it was investigated.
Gee, you're really petrified of the old guy aren't you? Sure he's an unprincipled liar, but the very fact that he gives you nightmares is hilarious. What's even funnier is that Key practically gave his corpse mouth-to-mouth by being so shifty over the tape. Why are you guys such losers?
Why are you guys such losers?
cough-PhillGoffsLabourattwentyoddpercent-cough!
Says the rabid Act supporter. Truly the one percent.
My voting record:
National 2008
National 2005
Winnie 1st 2002
Green 1999
Never have and probably won't vote Act, still undecided about this one. How does it feel to be a complete twerp Holden?
Post a Comment