Despite Winston Peters saying he did not know about a $100,000 donation to the Spencer Trust, Owen Glenn, in a letter to the privileges committee, says it was Winston Peters who asked him for that donation and later thanked him for it. I wonder if Helen Clark will take the honourabull member at his word now?
What Winston Peters said:
I have no knowledge of where and by whom any donation to New Zealand First was requested. I note Mr Glenn does not say I made it, or any donation was made, which is the substance of the New Zealand Herald 12 July allegation. Reported email in the New Zealand Herald, in fact contradicts his comment in his letter before you about donating to New Zealand First.
What Owen Glenn said:
The payment was made by me to assist funding the legal costs incurred personally by Rt Hon Winston Peters MP concerning his election petition dispute, at his request. Mr Peters sought help from me for this purpose in a personal conversation, some time after I had first met him in Sydney. I agreed to help in the belief that this step would also assist the Labour Party, in its relationship with Mr Peters. I supported the Labour Party.The privileges committee is meeting again to consider the matter on Thursday, next week.
There is discrepancy as to over when Winston Peters thanked Glenn for the donation: Owen Glenn says:
Mr Peters subsequently met me socially at the Karaka yearling sales, I believe in early 2006. He thanked me for my assistance.Winston Peters says:
In my evidence to the committee and in my press statement of 18 July I did not thank him until my lawyer advised me on 18 July 2008.
I wonder if Labour knew about the donation,as if they did they are protecting someone who knowingly lied, while publicly maintaining they have to take an honourable member at his word. Because for Labour, truth is irrelevant to politics. Lies are perfectly acceptable, provided the public doesn't have proof.Someone has lied and if Helen Clark is to take Peters at his word, she will have to hold that Owen Glenn lied. Problem is that the public won't agree with her and this could damage Labour. Perhaps Clark will wait for the report from the privileges committee before determining anything - it`ll certainly be politically convenient. That's because today is not about morals, laws, or what is right or wrong - its about politics.
Now, watch this, from the House in July