by frog
Here’s the Prime Minister discussing Winston Peters’ donation from Owen Glenn on Morning Report this morning.
“If we take Mr Peters at his word, and I must as an honourable member, and I take his lawyer at his word, then Mr Peters would not have been in the loop on the source of the funding.”
(And she expresses a similar sentiment here in The Press)
But I thought the very crux of the issue was about whether we could take Mr Peters at his word? After all the card he held up said ‘no‘, not ‘not that I know of‘.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Tue, July 22nd, 2008
Tags: , donation, Owen Glenn, prime minister, Winsto Peters
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
The crux of the matter is that the EFA is not working as the Greens had intended.
It was not the EFA that exposed Winston Peters (and not just for the $100K from Owen Glen but also the multiple anon $9995 donations from companies involved in fishing and racing PLUS drawing $45K from parliamentary services to pay his legal bills) but the media.
The EFA is so flawed that it is a joke.
The only way for the EFA not to be seen as a joke is for the full investigate powers of the act be implemented into a ful review pertaining to ALL of NZ First accounts. Including the secret lawyer accounts.
And for the Greens to support ACT in asking the speaker to refer Winston Peters to the Priviledges Committee.
Failure to enact the EFA in this matter will mean that the Greens stance over the act will be have been totally wasted.
And seen by the voters as another negative and not vote for the Greens.
The Greens having been the primary instigator of the EFA.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Gerrit
Well said sir.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I think you will find that the donation from Mr. Glen was well before the EPA even came into force.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Tushara,
You are probably right. Pity that.
Still want the Greens to help refer the matter to ther Priviledges Committe as a matter of principal.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)