More Wong lies uncovered

Written By: - Date published: 12:30 pm, February 17th, 2011 - 10 comments
Categories: corruption - Tags:

Remember all those unanswered questions over the abuse of public money by Pansy Wong and her husband? So does Campbell Live, which has uncovered the story of Sammy’s former business partner Steven Priest, who claims that Sammy ripped him off with Pansy’s help. It was Pansy’s signature on Priest’s contract that first got her in trouble.

Strangely the video of this piece is the only one not online but you can watch it in the On Demand video of the whole show. It starts at about 14 minutes.

You’ll remember that Sammy’s companies were registered to the address of Wong’s electorate office. Using that taxpayer-funded space for private business is illegal. The defence at the time is it was just a mailing address. Well, that was a lie. Priest confirms that he did business deals with Sammy there.

We learn, too, of another business trip by Sammy that was paid for with Pansy’s MP travel perk. This indicates a pattern of abuse, rather than the one-off mistake that Pansy and Key claimed. You’ll remember the whitewash McPhail report looked into this trip and others but relied on the Wongs’ word for what happened on the trips. The purpose of the June 2008 trip, according to that complete disgrace of a report, was “Sammy Wong visited friends in China”. So, Sammy lied to Hugh McPhail too because now know it was a business trip.

Why McPhail didn’t get this evidence from Priest, I don’t know. If McPhail has any honour, he’ll refund his fee and admit his report is hopelessly flawed. If Key has any honour, he will admit he helped Wong cover-up and ask the Auditor-General to launch an investigation with which he will cooperate fully.

10 comments on “More Wong lies uncovered ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    17 February 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Repost from Carol in Open Mic:

    “Question 12 for oral answer in the House today:

    http://parliamenttoday.co.nz/2011/02/questions-for-oral-answer-feb-17/

    12. Hon PETE HODGSON to the Prime Minister: Is he prepared to ask the Auditor-General to inquire further into the overseas travel of former Minister Pansy Wong?

    So, I’ll be interested to see JK’s response and the follow-up questions.”

    captcha: complaints

    • Carol 1.1
      17 February 2011 at 3:02 pm

      The short answer from GB is that the PM is not responsible. Any new evidence should be given to the Speaker or Auditor General. The Speaker spent a lot of time intervening, ruling questions out of order, and saying the Minister/PM is not responsible for the (mis)spending, the Speaker is.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 1.1.1
        17 February 2011 at 3:33 pm

        The question says will Key “enquire further”.

        Not saying he is responsible

        • Carol 1.1.1.1
          17 February 2011 at 3:48 pm

          The responses seem to be about parliamentary protocol and which minister/role was responsible for answering the question. But the overall impression I got was that the government is trying to stifle the story (a bit like the video from Campbell Live not going up in the CL list of vids as per usual).

          Brownlee was kinda like, “nothing to see here, move along.” The Speaker seemed to be running interference.

          I think it was on this issue that the Speaker threatened to throw Mallard out of the house. Brownlee’s answer was that if there was any relevant evidence it should go to the speaker or AG. Brownlee said he didn’t see Campbell Live last night. In a point of order, Mallard tried to describe the content of the CL segment. That is when the Speaker said Mallard was well out of order. I guess they didn’t want the content going on parliamentary record.

          • Rex Widerstrom 1.1.1.1.1
            17 February 2011 at 5:03 pm

            To be fair there are quite strict rules in Standing Orders about asking Ministers questions outside of their statutory responsibilities. Mind you, the fact that the Clerk’s Office even let it through indicates they didn’t think it inappropriate, and they’re pretty strict.

            Mallard tried to extemporise the content of a TV segment? FFS *headdesk*. That is out of order at Question Time (he could really only do it in the General Debate). The appropriate thing would have been to have a transcript and ask to table it.

            Who the hell is running Labour’s strategy? Some homeless guy they’re paying in meths?!

  2. Lanthanide 2
    17 February 2011 at 12:51 pm

    Repost from me in Open Mic:

    “The guy [original hovercraft designer] is now on the dole. Lets see WINZ go in for bat in a legal battle against this chinese company. Surely getting him some royalties up in the 7 figures would be good for his self-confidence, as well as for the government’s purse.

    Of course WINZ are only interested in sending people to ‘employment skills’ seminars etc.”

  3. Draco T Bastard 3
    17 February 2011 at 1:09 pm

    Why McPhail didn’t this evidence from Priest, I don’t know.

    Did he interview anyone other than the Wongs?

  4. bobo 4
    17 February 2011 at 4:44 pm

    The whole cambell live story came over like a fair go segment with pansy hanging up when asked where her husband is.. the hovercraft prototype looked great just wish that simon priest had gone to the media when the story broke or i guess he was still being fed bullshit by sammy.

  5. Treetop 5
    17 February 2011 at 9:34 pm

    Mr Priest spoke out last night and revealed some truths about the Wongs. No one can expect Priest to take the system on, on his own. It is not the fault of Priest that unquantified parliamentary and ministerial funds were used to probably bankrupt Priest?

    It is a fact that parliamentary and ministerial funds were used in the business dealings Priest had with the Wongs.

    Priest taking on the Wongs is one issue. Priest knowing the Wong’s lied to Mc Phail is another issue.

  6. john 6
    18 February 2011 at 9:16 am

    Grasshopper says:
    Too many wongs cannot be right!