Sep 21, 2008

SFO Provides Proof To Privileges Committee That Winston Peters Has Told Yet Another Lie

A number of other bloggers have been fullish in their coverage of Audrey Young's comprehensive analysis of Winston's shifting story. We are therefore just content to quote from its conclusion

Greens co-leader Russel Norman out of left field raised the issue with Henry of the $40,000 costs awarded against Peters in 2006.
Henry was quick to say it had been paid by him personally, not out of the Glenn $100,000, and that Peters would have learned of that fact for the first time that night.National MP Wayne Mapp was incredulous but Henry was adamant about what had happened.
Mapp: Are you seriously suggesting that you would've paid $40,000 in court costs which were against Mr Peters and you advised Mr Peters of that fact, and that Mr Peters would not have understood that that would've effectively come out of the $100,000 - well the donations received?
Henry: Mr Mapp, I'm not 'seriously' saying it; I am saying it. I'm not suggesting it. I'm telling you exactly what I did.....So don't slur it - this is what I did. I'd like to finish with Mr Mapp....Mr Mapp I am telling you what I did. So please do not slur it or belittle it by saying 'Are you seriously suggesting....' This is actually what I did. You mightn't like it but that's what I did.
Immediately the implication was that there may have been another lot of money - another gift - that perhaps should have been declared.
But the issue dropped two days later with Peters' so-called clarifying statement of Peters, saying he had reimbursed it himself.
Now it seems the Serious Fraud Office has evidence to the contrary.
There may well be issues around the SFO's intervention in the privileges committee hearing. Peters says the office is politically motivated and it has breached the
secrecy provisions of S39 of its act.
NZPA reports that the SFO director consulted the Clerk of the House and the Auditor-General before offering the evidence to the privileges.
There may be issues to debate about the intervention but the primary issue is what contradictions it may have exposed.