Posts by Matthew Hooton
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Thanks.
-
Russell: "that bizarre "gang-rape" claim"??? Wow. What's that?
-
"So if you'd been wondering -- as Messrs Farrar and Hooton have been doing very loudly -- how Clark could possibly have doubted the recollection of a prominent party donor over the word of her foreign minister, that's it. Glenn, successful businessman and excellent philanthropist that he is, had been demonstrating that he was not necessarily a reliable witness."
I have wondered no such thing. What I wonder about is why, when Clark was told by Peters that he received no such money, she didn't go back to Glenn (or get someone else to) and say, "Hey, Owen, Winston says you didn't give him money. What's the story here?'
And when Peters held up his "No" sign and said someone was fabricating emails and that Audrey Young was making up stories and should resign, along with her editor, Clark (or one of her staff) never went and said: "Ah, Winston, this is getting a bit hot. Are you sure that he never gave you money?"
Again, when the matter came up again in July, it seems incredible Clark (or her staff) didn't say: "Come on Winston, what's the story here, because Owen is adament he did give you money."
And, Russell, your claim that Glenn was not necessarily a reliable witness should surely be balanced by the fact that the Foreign Minister is hardly a reliable witness either. Remember the Russian submarines he reckoned were operating off Great Barrier Island in the 1980s? Or the ferry that scraped its bottom in Tory Channel. Or that Selwyn Cushing tried to bribe him? Or that the SFO and the IRD were involved in a criminal conspiracy to cover up the winebox issue? Or that he would never serve in a Cabinet with Birch and Shipley?
When it comes to reliable witnesses, it is not obvious to me why you would back one over the other perhaps, but to back Peters over Glenn after a single phone call, and then stay silent for six months while Peters was making such strong attacks on people like Audrey Young seems to me to be an extreme case of "see no evil". Helen Clark is hardly someone who does not gossip and exchange information very widely.
Also, I have noticed an extraordinary trend by so-called liberals to almost go on the defence for Peters. As usual, the people at thestandard.org.nz are the worst offenders, but I understand from one genuine liberal who attended Drinking Liberally this week that there was alarming levels of support for one of the most reactionary, illiberal and racist MPs we have seen in recent times, and one who has done tremendous harm to the integrity of our political system (and continues to do so this very day).
When are Labour-leaning people going to say no to Peters in the way many National-leaning people, particularly those of us on the socially liberal wing of the party, did some years ago?
-
Don
The quote is on page two of the formal letter from the Police (Ian Kain) to the Chief Electoral Officer (David Henry) dated 20 March 2006 reporting on the result of their "investigation". It has been released under the Official Information Act widely, including to me, and I have it in front of me now, but it does not appear to have been put on the internet.
A similar (but slightly different) statement was made by the police on 17 March 2006:
"A number of complaints were referred by the Chief Electoral Officer relating to the Exclusive Brethren:
"� On the issue relating to distribution of leaflets on polling day, inquiries by Police revealed that the Brethren took considerable measures to ensure no material was distributed on polling day, however, it appears that despite those efforts a very small amount of material was distributed. There was insufficient evidence to take the matter any further.
"� There was a concern that one of the Brethren leaflets had a false address on it. In the overall circumstances of this complaint no further action was required.
"� The primary complaint was that leaflets and newspaper articles were distributed in breach of s221 of the Electoral Act. A review of the material by Police indicated that there was insufficient similarity or association between the material and the New Zealand National Party on which to base a charge."
That statement can be found at http://www.police.govt.nz/news/release/2345.html
As Craig says - and I agree with his comments - it is bewildering that the police found that everyone was apparently acting entirely lawfully or that a letter telling them off would be enough to remedy the wrongdoing. But the statement is certainly worth reading, as there is something in it to outrage everyone.
Incidentially, had the book been thrown at everyone as Craig suggests, I think that Ms Simpson would have been the most likely to be convicted, at least according to the legal advice from Crown Law that the police received, and their own judgements. That is why those of us on the political right believe that no one was prosecuted - even though that does make it sound as if we have moved into Oliver Stone territory.
-
Don/Graeme - I have studied this matter in some detail and may be able to assist in bridging the gap between you.
1. On the matter concerning the campaign by seven businessmen who were members of the Exclusive Brethren, the Chief Electoral Officer was sufficiently concerned to refer the matter to the Police, which is what the Frog Blog discussion that Don links to was all about.
The police then investigated these matters. (Of course, we on the right have profound concerns about the quality of that investigation and the decisions that followed, but that is another matter I will address below.)
On 20 March 2006, Ian Kain, Senior Sergent, National Bureau of Investigative Support wrote back to the Chief Electoral Officer and reported, with respect to all the matters concerning the Exclusive Brethren and concluded:
"Police have not identified any offences in relation to these complaints and will not be taking these matters further."
As a result, under the rule that you're innocent until proven guilty, Graeme was being sympathetic to critics of the Brethren when he said "for the most part, this was perfectly legal". According to the Police, it was all perfectly legal.
Interestingly, this is in contrast to the conclusion the Police reached with respect to Heather Simpson, the Prime Minister's Chief of Staff, and the pledge card issue where, in the same letter to the Chief Electoral Officer, Senior Sergent Kain wrote:
"As a result of our inquiries Police consider that a prima facie case against Heather Simpson couild be established."
According to an internal police memo by Bill Peoples, Acting National Manager, National Bureau of Investigative Support, dated 27 February 2006, the Police had also been advised by the Crown Law Office that "such a charge would be likely to result in a conviction".
However, the Police decided not to prosecute.
The suspicion in right wing circles, which some would say is a little paranoid, is that the Police may well have thought there was something illegal about the Brethren campaign but having decided not to prosecute Ms Simpson, they decided it was best not to pursue charges against anyone.
As a result, there has never been a court judgement on this matter or the Simpson matter, or any other matter with respect to the 2005 election - so technically speaking everything that went on was fully "legal", including the matters that have been declared legal by the retrospective pledge card legislation.
2. On the second matter, what Graeme calls "Labour's Breach of the Election Spending Cap", there has also not been any legal judgement - but Graeme does not claim it was illegal, simply that there was a breach of the cap.
This is supported by Labour's own return to the Electoral Commission which can be found at http://www.elections.org.nz/parties/party-expenses-2005.html This shows that Labour, by its own declaration, spent 117.59% of the legal cap.
The National Party was second, spending 95.00% of the cap, and would still have been just under if its (very dodgy) GST "error" was also incluced.
It would, of course, been well over the limit if the Exclusive Brethren spending was also included in National's total - which some say it should have been - but this is not supported by the Police's finding with respect to the EB's campaign. The Police specifically said: "Police are of a view that there is insufficient similarity or association between this material and NZ National Party material upon which to base a charge." (Labour supporters could be forgiven for having as little confidence in that "finding" as National supporters have in the "finding" that Ms Simpson should not have been charged.)
* * *
All this is in a way ancient history, but there is still a lot of anger on both sides and - with Labour not prepared to engage with opposition parties in good faith on reforming the Electoral Act, or to admit that its own proposals are seriously flawed at a philosophical not just a technical level - there is going to be a very, very nasty political debate over the next few months about these matters.
It would do us well if it was more sophisticated than the two sides yelling "Exclusive Brethren" and "pledge card" across the house (and the blogs).
I promise never to post such a long comment here again.