Media on Peters
The failure of Peters to close these issues down was obvious on TV One last night. Their political editor, Guyon Espiner, is usually reluctant to be categorical on an issue, but he made it very clear that he saw the press conference as avoiding all the relevant questions.
Young and Trevett in the Herald report:
Serious credibility questions remain for Foreign Minister Winston Peters after he failed yesterday to throw any light on what happened to a $25,000 donation given by Sir Robert Jones in 2005 for Mr Peters’ NZ First Party.
Sir Robert said he was dismayed at what Mr Peters said yesterday and believed a police complaint will follow shortly – although he said he would not be making it.
If the Spencer Trust will not tell Sir Bob what they did with his money, he should demand it back as it was given on condition of helping NZ First’s election campaign.
He predicted that Mr Peters was “going to die on his own sword on this matter”.
Mr Peters said the police would not be “so naive or uninformed or unprofessional” to investigate the matter.
That sounds like close to a threat to me?
He also said that Roger McClay – a former adviser to Mr Peters – asked for the cheque to be made out to the Spencer Trust.
Wayne Peters had sent Sir Robert a receipt from the Spencer Trust.
So Winston’s staff member asks for the money to go to the Spencer Trust and his brother recepits the money yet WInston claims like Sergeant Schultz to know nothing.
Mr Peters protested his ignorance of the Spencer Trust yesterday and said Sir Robert was wrong.
“Bob’s memory is failing him here.”
Mr Peters said he had not solicited the donation, as Sir Robert claimed.
So who did? Can Peters explain why Jones would donate to the Spencer Trust?
He said he had no involvement with the Spencer Trust, that he did not know what the trust had used the money for, and that he had not spoken to his brother about the trust.
There are so many people he does not speak to. His lawyer over his legal fees, his staff over their fundraising activites on his behalf and his brother over the trust set up to support his party.
Maybe next he will deny even knowing his brother?
The NZ Herald Editorial:
Rather than answer that or any other question yesterday, Winston Peters said he was “not required” to disclose anything about the Spencer Trust. “New Zealand First is not going to subject itself to demands not required of any other political party or leader.”
That is nonsense. If any other party or leader had asked for a cheque to be made out to a mysterious trust and never accounted for it, Mr Peters would be scandalised.
Exactly.
Corruption is a word seldom heard in political debate here except from him – often, ironically, on the subject of undisclosed contributions. It rolls off his tongue much too readily when other parties’ dealings are under discussion.
We do not propose to treat him as he treats others. We will not believe there is wilful dishonesty unless it is proven beyond doubt. The very suspicion of corruption is poisonous to public confidence in government and politics. To spread such poison without proof does almost as much harm as corruption itself.
What is becoming clear to me is we need a very powerful investigative body that can deal with suspected wrong-doing by the powerful.
Trying to bring Peters back into the real world – rather than the fantasy world he has been inhabiting for the past fortnight – is not an act of kindness. It is an act of necessity to stop NZ First’s downward spiral taking Labour with it. …
This time Peters’ usual response to crisis – the bluster, the diversions, the smokescreens and games over semantics – are not going to suffice. …
But Clark holds all the cards, not Peters. Were she to sack him, Peters technically could pull NZ First out of its support arrangement with Labour. But the only loser from that would be NZ First. Jumping ship would make it look like NZ First put Peters’ ego ahead of stable Government. It would demonstrate that NZ First can never be trusted to stay the course. It would be electoral suicide. …
The question is how mant weeks will Clark let this carry on for?
Kitchin and Watkins in the Dom Post:
Sir Robert Jones has accused Winston Peters of “lying” about a $25,000 political donation.
Will Winston sue Sir Robert for defamation? I suspect not.
Mr Peters lashed out yesterday at what he labelled a campaign of “innuendo and character assassination”. He insisted he had done nothing wrong after revelations by The Dominion Post that Sir Robert’s $25,000 cheque for NZ First was not disclosed to electoral authorities.
In response, Sir Robert accused Mr Peters of talking “rubbish”. “I’m very sad that Winston has now resorted to blatant lying,” Sir Robert told The Dominion Post.
It really was a mistake for Peters toget into a scrap with Jones.
But his version of events, in relation to the circumstances in which the $25,000 cheque was given, is completely at odds with Sir Robert’s.
The tycoon said Mr Peters had approached him seeking money for NZ First a month before the 2005 election. Sir Robert said he signed a blank cheque and one of his staff later made it out for $25,000 to the Spencer Trust.
Sir Robert said: “I would have been happy if he [Mr Peters] had spent the money on what it was intended for – NZ First … but this Spencer Trust, I’d never heard of it till it was drawn to my attention this week.”
I think people would be shocked to learn exactly how much money the Spencer Trust has had donated over the years – and with never a cent of it declared as having been donated to NZ First. So either the Trust is sitting on a huge bank balance or it has been spending the money in some way to benefit NZ First.
And that expenditure may constitute an effective donation in kind which should have been declared. If they paid for advertisements on their behalf it certainly would. If they paid the wages of campaign staff members then less clear cut. The issues of legality are almost impossible to determine without actually knowing what the Spencer Trust has spent its money on.