Audrey has questions

Audrey Young says Winston’s semi-answers to dates raise more questions than they answer.  She asks:

My colleague Claire Trevett made a valiant effort yesterday to get Peters to clarify what he actually believes is wrong. But his answers force us into guesswork.

Does Peters say it is wrong because it did not happen or because he knows the reason it happened?

Does Peters say it is wrong because he knows the donor, meaning it can’t be called anonymous.

Does Peters say it is wrong because it came from a named trust account?

Is it wrong because it is not a donation but a loan?

Does Peters say it is wrong because the donor, if there is a donor, calls it a donation to Starship Foundation rather than to the party (it formed a large part of the party’s $158,000 cheque to the charity – which has since been rejected – as the part’s substitute for repaying Parliament the money it unlawfully spent last election).

May be that is the reasons Owen Glenn won’t confirm or deny whether he gave money to New Zealand First when he is willing to be unequivocal about other parties. Maybe Glenn thinks he gave a donation to Starship via NZ First.

Maybe someone asked Glenn for confidentiality. Glenn did himself nor New Zealand First any favours by declining to be upfront over a donation to the party.

Whatever the answers to the questions, $100,000 is a helluva lot to be “wrong” about.

The public has a right to know whether Peters is adhering to the same high standards of transparency he has advocated for other parties.

Winston may try and get out of this with his usual bluster.  I don’t think that will be enough.