International Cat Speculators Since 2006

Posts tagged ‘Matthew Hooton’

Sickening Pro-Government Police Corruption

Hooton has a post today on his OIA request regarding the Brash Email affair.

It makes sickening reading. This is the sort of pro-government political manipulation & undermining of the opposition we have come to expect from Zimbabwe, not here in New Zealand.

The fact that Matthew has to explain *why* this is important would also suggest that we have lost our perspective in a haze of government spin.

The letter then says that the police began their investigation on 28 September 2006. In other words, according to Police National Headquarters itself, they waited 13 months before commencing an investigation into an alleged theft that had potentially very significant electoral and constitutional implications.

(In a democracy, it is vitally important that political parties, unions, business groups and other NGOs are able to meet and communicate in private to achieve a common policy position, and then agree on strategy, tactics and operations. If collective groups are unable to do this, they cannot function, because no group of adults will ever agree on everything the moment they walk into a room, and they may not want their initial differences to be made public. Demanding that everything be transparent is Pollyanna-ish and simply undermines the efficacy of political parties, unions, business groups and other NGOs and therefore undermines democracy. The Police should take very seriously any suggestion of politically-motivated crimes which undermine this ability for groups that are important to our democracy, such as the main opposition party, to reach agreement privately.)

But Police National Headquarter’s dodgy behaviour is even worse than this.

In the letter, Police National Headquarters claims they were first notified of the alleged thefts on 30 August 2005. This is new information because, until now, it has always been believed that the first they knew officially about the alleged theft was when Dr Brash made a formal complaint in September 2006.

We now learn, from Police National Headquarters itself, that, in fact, the police waited at least 22 months from the time they were first notified about the alleged theft before interviewing any of the key players!

Lefty Makes Threats

(Short story: if you read no other posts this week, read this from Hooton)

I initially didn’t think much of the comment moderation over at what is now Chris Trotter and Matthew Hooton’s blog, but once Matthew came on board, it put it in a different context. In fact, it’s quite good to ahve a blog that tries to keep a higher standard of comments.

Most people now understand that. Not all though…

What is it with lefties and the word “rant”? They seem attach it to every single thing they disagree with, no matter how thoughtful and considered.

In actual fact, this post illuminates some very key passages of New Zealand political history…

…  In 1996, Peters had attacked the Bolger Government, the Reserve Bank and the Reserve Bank Act, saying they were doing untold harm to New Zealand.  He had ideas about how the operation of monetary policy could be changed in New Zealand that he took on the campaign trail.  I am told that, soon after Peters’ appointment as Treasurer, then Reserve Bank Governor Don Brash met with his new boss and said he had read New Zealand First’s manifesto and speeches and, assuming Peters was serious, wanted to set up a process to review the RBA and the operation of monetary policy in New Zealand.  My source (and you can guess who it may be) said that Peters replied: “Don’t worry about all that.  The next election is three years away.”

I find that sick.  It later had very important implications.

As close followers of politics will know, a National/ACT/United Future/Maori Party/NZ First Government was a mathematical possibility after the last election.  The way I understand things, National, ACT, United Future and the Maori Party all agreed on basic terms about how such a government would operate, and the other party leaders told Brash to get in touch with Peters to discuss it.  Brash never did, and the other party leaders were perplexed.

The reason, as I understand it, is that Brash had been so sickened by Peters’ cynicism from the time Brash was Governor and Peters was Treasurer that he simply did not want to deal with him directly, despite it being the difference between government and opposition.  Instead, letters written by Peter Dunne’s Chief of Staff (and former Bolger Chief of Staff) Rob Eaddy were sent.

…and showed that Labour were much the same – while quoting from “The Hollow Men” when it suits…

I got Je Lan Brash on side but Don chose the Peter Keenan draft, and, politically, that was the right call.  In a sense, it was fair enough for Keenan to call me, as reported in “The Hollow Men” “an idiot”.

Nevertheless, I caused a bit of a fuss.  I had paid for a table for 10 at the Orewa speech.  Ironically, I had invited Diane and Bill Foreman to join my table.  When it was confirmed to me that Brash was going with the Keenan speech I cancelled my table.  Lockwood tells me there was a gap, which he – as local MP – was embarrassed about, but which I am quietly proud of.

…they claim that Hooton was involved in the Brash Orewa speech, which is false.

Read the entire Hooton post, it’s worth it.

Indeed He Should

Hooton nails it.

If you, Dr Cullen, as Deputy Prime Minister, really don’t have confidence in the SFO, you should explain why, or shut the [expletive deleted] up. Because it is a constitutional crisis for the Deputy Prime Minister not to have confidence in a major law enforcement agency, especially one investigating the Foreign Minister.

Other major constitutional crisis include changing electoral law without a super majority, undermining the neutrality of the public service, goverments stealing public money to fund successful reelection campaigns, refusing to remove or even take responsibility for cabinet members under investigation for fraud…

Why exactly is it that we have had so many under Labour?

And why are 17 year olds prepared to play chicken with motor vehicles to try and stop the election of the opposition?

Hooton Blogging

We must really welcome Matthew Hooton to the blogosphere.

His first post is very, very good.

Peter, in various interviews, has said that he doesn’t give a damn about the possible breaches of the electoral laws and that his job is to defend his client on the more serious criminal allegations of fraud.  Worryingly for Peters, Peter, for all his vast experience in the criminal law, does not seem even to understand basic elements of electoral law.  For example, when Kathryn Ryan correctly said that the $50,000 donation from the Spencer Trust to New Zealand First should have been declared, he incorrectly corrected her and said the issue was the $25,000 from Sir Robert Jones to the Spencer Trust.

Peters should be worried that his lawyer does not display even a basic understanding or our previous and current electoral law.  Assuming we as taxpayers are paying Peter’s invoices, with Peters as a Minister being entitled to have his legal costs paid by the State, then we are getting poor value too.

The fact is that, under the old electoral law that is relevant here, it was only the donations from the Spencer Trust to New Zealand First that are relevant.  It is they that must have been declared, but which were not.

That is the serious issue – the issue which makes a liar of the New Zealand First Party.

Each year, the National Party has declared that it has received donations from the Waitemata and Ruahine trusts.  When it has been required to do so, the Labour Party has declared donations from entities such as the unions, the Lim Chhour Investment Trust and anonymously.  Each time they have done so, they have attracted criticism in the media.

We now know that New Zealand First – while criticising Labour and National for their funding arrangements – has been using exactly the same arrangements but with the difference that it has not even been prepared to declare, as the law required, that it was doing so.

This is the profound lie at the heart of this scandal – every other party obeyed the law and accepted the public and media criticism that came with funnelling money through secret trusts.  New Zealand First lied about it and broke the law deliberately over many years to maintain the fiction that they were the only pure party in Parliament.  That is the fraud on our democracy and parliamentary system for which Helen Clark, were she to have any integrity, would fire him rather than keeping him in her Government, as a Minister, on $200,000 a year, with a ministerial mansion, a 24/7 limo service, a dozen or so taxpayer-funded staff, access to Cabinet papers, and with the right to have his legal fees paid by us as taxpayers.

I see Rodney Hide has reported them to the police. Good.

Tag Cloud