More on Scampi

by Whaleoil on August 31, 2008

Well, my site has taken a ham­mer­ing since post­ing the infa­mous secret scampi video. Now by way of a back­rounder here is some filler infor­ma­tion that tells you why this video is so explo­sive. It is from Hansard and the debate on Scampi. When you read this you can see why Win­ston Ray­mond peters, 63, List MP of no fixed abode is going to be squirm­ingthat the video has now seen the light of day. You would also do well to read Ques­tion 5 from the other day as well.

Hon KEN SHIRLEY (ACT): On 16 Octo­ber 2001 Win­ston Peters, the leader of the New Zealand First Party, issued a press release. It was titled: “Gross incom­pe­tence in fish­eries. Heads need to roll.” He was call­ing for a dis­missal of the chief exec­u­tive of the Min­istry of Fish­eries, and he claimed that the min­istry was guilty of gross incom­pe­tence, faulty allo­ca­tion of scampi quota, wan­ton dis­re­gard for due process, and unlaw­ful treat­ment of fish­ers. He called on the Min­is­ter of Fish­eries to invoke an imme­di­ate inquiry. He said that the allo­ca­tion of scampi was to be taken away from the min­istry, as it could not be trusted. Those were very seri­ous alle­ga­tions, and some even called them reck­less. It was clas­sic Win­ston Peters innuendo.

Six months later, on 24 April 2002, in the gen­eral debate-this very debate we are hav­ing now-Winston Peters lam­basted the Min­is­ter of Fish­eries for not tak­ing action. He accused the Min­istry of Fish­eries of con­don­ing cor­rup­tion, aid­ing and abet­ting cor­rup­tion, and involv­ing itself in that cor­rup­tion. Win­ston Peters said: “I will pro­duce evi­dence that the min­istry know­ingly con­doned that cor­rup­tion.” He went on fur­ther to say: “In the next few weeks I intend to demon­strate with volu­mi­nous evi­dence and affi­davits why this min­istry should be removed from its job and the Seri­ous Fraud Office asked, belat­edly, to do its job.”

Even­tu­ally, a par­lia­men­tary inquiry into the scampi alle­ga­tions was insti­gated by the Pri­mary Pro­duc­tion Com­mit­tee, fol­low­ing a very high-profile Assign­ment pro­gramme that screened on tele­vi­sion. One would have expected Win­ston Peters, hav­ing made those alle­ga­tions, to rejoice at hav­ing got that inquiry but, oh no, he gave not a whis­per, not a mur­mur. He quickly replaced Doug Wool­er­ton, the per­ma­nent New Zealand First mem­ber on that select com­mit­tee, and then spent his time focus­ing on nar­row­ing and clos­ing the terms of ref­er­ence for the com­mit­tee. It was all, one would say, rather curious.

The Pri­mary Pro­duc­tion Com­mit­tee sat for sev­eral months, con­sumed an enor­mous amount of Parliament’s time, and reported on 2 Decem­ber 2003. Win­ston Peters pro­duced no evi­dence to sup­port the reck­less alle­ga­tions he had made, and he cer­tainly did not table the “volu­mi­nous evi­dence” he had promised. He was as quiet as a lamb, with barely a whisper.

Last night on tele­vi­sion fur­ther alle­ga­tions were made, and ref­er­ence was made to a sworn affi­davit. The func­tion­ing of this Par­lia­ment and its processes was raised, and the pro­gramme focused on a for­mer mem­ber of this House-perhaps one of the most unsavoury mem­bers who has passed through this House-a Mr Ross Meurant.

It seems that a for­mer mem­ber of Par­lia­ment, Ross Meu­rant, was engaged by Simunovich Fish­eries as an adviser and lob­by­ist. Con­cur­rent with that, of course-and a lot of peo­ple do not realise this-Mr Meu­rant was also hired by the New Zealand First Party and was on its pay­roll; actu­ally, on the tax­pay­ers’ pay­roll through the Par­lia­men­tary Service.

We were told that Mr Meu­rant attended sev­eral meet­ings, together with prin­ci­pals of Simunovich Fish­eries. Mr Meurant’s for­mer part­ner of some 9 years, Yvonne Theresa Dos­set­ter, swears that Ross Meu­rant met at the Simunovich’s olive farm fol­low­ing the infa­mous Ker­madec restau­rant meal, and the pro­posal was put that the pay­ment of $300,000 to Meu­rant would be a good invest­ment for the Simunovich busi­ness. It is alleged that the deed was done, and that the money would be avail­able from an Aus­tralian bank account. Sub­se­quently, it is alleged that Mr Meu­rant boasted to Yvonne Dos­seter, who has sworn an affi­davit, that the money was paid, and that Meu­rant indeed had it in a brown paper bag.
This is an extremely seri­ous alle­ga­tion, and it brings into ques­tion in the public’s mind the func­tion­ing of our rep­re­sen­ta­tive democ­racy. What we have to realise is that Win­ston Peters was in there with him.

 

Pop­u­lar­ity: unranked [?]

Related Posts:

Tagged as: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: