Rortbuster not finished with Wong

Written By: - Date published: 10:21 am, December 15th, 2010 - 35 comments
Categories: corruption - Tags: , , ,

Rortbuster Pete Hodgson unveiled yet more information about Pansy and Sammy Wong’s business activities in China on the taxpayer dime in Parliament yesterday. It’s damning material. The Auditor-General had decided not to investigate but there’s every chance she will now or that the Police will.

The latest material centres around the December 2008 trip that was supposedly for private, non-business activities. This is the trip when the Wong’s “inadvertently” and “mistakenly” engaged in business activity, including Pansy witnessing a business document as a Minister of the Crown, that led to Pansy’s resignation.

The new evidence shows that none of this was “inadvertent”. Hodgson told Parliament that:

“upon arrival in “Mrs Wong was greeted in Lianyungang by a large, pre-printed banner, which, when translated, read: “Warm welcome to New Zealand Cabinet Minister to visit and inspect our company””

Hodgson put that new information to John Key and further asked:

“Would he be surprised to learn that Mrs Wong then inspected that company and encouraged “the staff members of Hovercraft to be innovative and brave”, and that she wished “the company achieve a great success in the nearest future”; and noting that her husband is a part-owner of that company, does it now occur to the Prime Minister that the trip to Lianyungang was motivated by matters other than attending the flower show, as Mrs Wong claimed?”

Key avoided these serious questions with his usual petty insults and snide put-downs. He then denied Hodgson leave to table the new evidence, which was gained from Chinese language websites that have been taken down since the scandal broke. Fortunately, Labour has side-stepped that attempt to suppress debate by putting the information on their new site: pansyfacts.co.nz

You only need to look at his answers to see that Key had clearly been made aware of these new facts, which were kept secret from the Parliamentary Service inquiry.

The author of that whitewash, independent contractor Hugh McPhail is, bizarrely, “sticking by” his findings despite the gaping holes in the evidence that led to them. The need for a proper investigation that re-examines the trips that McPhail supposedly investigated and all of Wong’s trips as a minister grows by the day.

I suspect that we’ll hear more revelations from the Rortbuster before Parliament rises or in the new year.

Rortbuster Pete is to be thanked for cleansing Parliament of yet another corrupt Nat. It’s a pity that he’s retiring next year, because there’s a lot more cleansing that needs to be done. Still he might have time for one or two more. Any guesses who will next be in his sights?

35 comments on “Rortbuster not finished with Wong ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. TightyRighty 1
    15 December 2010 at 10:30 am

    The last time labour went after someone on expenses, it massively blew up in their faces. One national scalp to three labour ones. None of them had the grace to resign however. I wonder who will get poo splattered this time in labour. I doubt they’ll have the grace to resign.

    • Tigger 1.1
      15 December 2010 at 10:38 am

      Are you implying Wong’s resignation was ‘graceful’? Disgraceful is more like it.

      By the way, TR, any idea why Worth resigned? Was that equally graceful?

      • grumpy 1.1.1
        15 December 2010 at 12:19 pm

        I think one got a blow job but didn’t follow through with payment for services rendered and the other ( a Labour minister) got a couple of massages with very happy endings that the taxpayer paid for – isn’t that right?

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1
          15 December 2010 at 1:22 pm

          Sounds like you’re letting your imagination and projection get in the way of reality.

    • Colonial Viper 1.2
      15 December 2010 at 10:38 am

      TightyRighty apparently you equate buying a bunch of flowers or a hundred bucks worth of hotel pr0n to using Ministerial titles and travel perks to advance private business dealings for both yourself and your partner.

      Nice one.

      • burt 1.2.1
        15 December 2010 at 10:57 am

        Colonial Viper

        Who appointed you to the position of determining which abuses MPs should be held accountable for and which we should move on and ignore?

        Apart the colour of the party logo, what other factors do you use to determine when we need to do something and when we need to just move on ?

    • Craig Glen Eden 1.3
      15 December 2010 at 10:40 am

      Please spare us your crap TR the games up, the man and woman in the street want our money back from Key and his mates. You wouldn’t happen to have got a bottle or two yourself TR by any chance?

    • Bored 1.4
      15 December 2010 at 11:24 am

      Mayhaps Labour was cleaned out last time round, you had better hope so.

  2. burt 2
    15 December 2010 at 11:02 am

    I hope the investigation isn’t over but I fear that if the A-G finds that Wong has broken the law we will just denigrate the A-G and say the rules were changed and it’s not fair.

    However the courts should decide if she has broken the rules rather than parliament.

    You Labour supporters have fully supported that sort of self serving BS from parliament before so I suspect you will again – Oh, what was that… Only the red team get the apologist treatment….

    • bbfloyd 2.1
      15 December 2010 at 11:06 am

      i was right burt. you are starting to sound mighty desperate…

    • burt 2.2
      15 December 2010 at 11:15 am

      bbfloyd

      No, not desperate at all, just loving the way you partisan hacks are such apologists for Labour and yet you demand accountability and transparency from National.

      But it makes me wonder, are you aware when defending your team that you are being a complete hypocrite or are the partisan blinkers such that you simply don’t notice ?

      • Tigger 2.2.1
        15 December 2010 at 11:19 am

        Bull burt – there’s few on here who have defended any abuse of perks by any MPs. But if you can’t see the difference between what Wong has done and some other behaviour (even Rodney’s using of the perk doesn’t come close) then you’re totally blinkereed.

      • burt 2.2.2
        15 December 2010 at 11:26 am

        Did you miss the bit where I said she should stand in court if she has broken the rules? Was it the constant defending of Labour and ‘not in the public interest’ that we got so use to that made you overlook that comment?

        Hey, here is a tip – when I said she should stand in court I was meaning a National party person … no need to switch off and denigrate me like you got so use to doing when self serving corrupt Labour were in govt.

  3. bbfloyd 3
    15 December 2010 at 11:03 am

    i would have thought the pm would have to be the obvious target, considering that it seems he approved all these activities..

    • Zaphod Beeblebrox 3.1
      15 December 2010 at 11:14 am

      He also said he would be happy (or was it relaxed) about having her back in caucus.

      • felix 3.1.1
        15 December 2010 at 11:52 am

        It’s starting to look more and more like Key himself is donkey deep in the Wong-Shipley deals. I suggest that that’s why Pansy had to go.

  4. Bright Red 4
    15 December 2010 at 11:15 am

    Did Captain Panic-pants put out amemo asking righties to describe Wong’s resignation as ‘graceful’?

    Because I see it in the editorials and in the blogs.

    What bull. She never answered a question in the House. Never explained or apologised.

    And as for this from the Dom editorial http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/4458186/Editorial-Sorry-end-to-trailblazers-career :

    “a good-natured trailblazer who refrained from name-calling in the parliamentary bearpit and energetically advocated for women and Asian New Zealanders.”

    What exactly did Wong achieve for anyone, apart from filling National’s coffers? And ‘good-natured’? She was a disgrace in the House who regularly had to be pulled up by Lockwood for avoiding the questions and making petty attacks.

    • Bunji 4.1
      15 December 2010 at 12:03 pm

      and “energetically advocated for women and Asian New Zealanders.” ???

      I’m sorry, she was near the top-of-the-table as a do-nothing minister in a do-nothing government. Women and Ethnic people went backwards on pay under her watch. Their rights certainly didn’t improve. Closing the pay and employment equity unit seemed to be her major contribution. If that’s energetically advocating, I’d hate to see “relaxed”.

      Marty summed her up well in February.

      • Tigger 4.1.1
        15 December 2010 at 12:44 pm

        She was meant to be energetically advocating for all ethnic NZers in the past two years… But given the number of trips to China clearly she couldn’t look past her own ethnicity.

        • Rex Widerstrom 4.1.1.1
          15 December 2010 at 5:46 pm

          Well said, Tigger. Our MPs – and especially our Ministers – are actually supposed to govern with the interests of all New Zealanders at heart, without fear or favour.

          It’s bad enough that we appear to have tacitly accepted that – aside from Maori seat MPs, who have a mandate to do so – it’s acceptable for a Minister to favour minorities to the apparent exclusion of everyone else (because she did bugger all of note in her portfolios).

          But when she gets away for years with ignoring even the majority of the minority, so to speak, one has to ask why she wasn’t pulled up by the successive National “leaders” under whom she served. Too personally useful, perhaps?

    • Treetop 4.2
      15 December 2010 at 1:17 pm

      The reason for not answering questions in the house would be not wanting to misled parliament. Wong could also not afford to do this as were the Auditor General to investigate, Wong may of slipped up and given another version to a question or information may be obtained to discredit the version she gave to the house.

      Best to keep ones mouth zipped up eh!

      • Akldnut 4.2.1
        15 December 2010 at 1:59 pm

        She misled the house everyday she turned up there – misrepresenting a competent, functioning Minister!

  5. deemac 5
    15 December 2010 at 12:11 pm

    Duncan Garner summed her up very well on Campbell Live …

  6. Green Tea 6
    15 December 2010 at 12:22 pm

    Where was ol’ ‘Rortbuster’ when the members of his own party were sending the taxpayer the bill?

  7. Deadly_NZ 7
    15 December 2010 at 12:38 pm

    YAY and Parlaiment is live from 2pm I usually don’t watch but today I just have to watch the teflon John wiggle…

  8. grumpy 8
    15 December 2010 at 2:13 pm

    I hope the AG or police pursue this but I fear at least the AG’s time will be taken up investigating Len Brown’s suspected illegal secret donations.

    • Bright Red 8.1
      15 December 2010 at 2:24 pm

      you don’t think the A-G can walk and chew gum?

      And didn’t John Banks and Bob Parker also use trusts to collect donations?

      • grumpy 8.1.1
        15 December 2010 at 2:49 pm

        Probably but I doubt if they were ratepayer funded – if they were then put them against the wall too!

  9. Rex Widerstrom 9
    15 December 2010 at 5:40 pm

    He then denied Hodgson leave to table the new evidence, which was gained from Chinese language websites that have been taken down since the scandal broke.

    A side issue to that taking place in te main circus ring but… say what now?! Whose websites are we talking about? If they’re connected to the Chinese government (as most businesses in China are), that suggests some pretty heavy influence.

    And even if they’re not… that suggests some pretty heavy influence. You don’t just take down your company’s site, or a site promoting a product or whatever these were because there’s somethign embarrassing to a has-been former NZ Minister on it, unless she – or people connected to her – possess a pretty big stick. It’s the kind of thing I’d expect to see Tony Soprano able to pull off, not the supposedly benign and happier-in-the-background Sammy Wong.

    Is there any more detail on this? Hopefully it’s an angle Hodgson and his pixies are chasing up.

  10. Robert Atack 10
    15 December 2010 at 8:25 pm

    You are making out that Pete is some kind of hero ??? I don’t get it?
    He was the minister of energy that told you that Peak Oil wouldn’t occur until sometime after 2037, and he told you that oil wouldn’t be over $25.00 a barrel out to 2020 (at least)
    He sat on his butt doing nothing except spouting information he hadn’t a clue about. The most important information the ‘energy’ minister should have looked into and understood.
    He ignored reams of information I gave him and the Ministry of Economic Development.
    If he and labor had started thinking and understanding the soon to be (opps something just went over $2.00 again) shit storm we are going to try and live through, they could have changed the mind set of enough people to make things look a tad better for your children.

    Snip
    There in no easy answer, but I can assure you that this Government is aware of the oil situation, and determined to ensure New Zealand moves over time to a future where we are not overly dependent on oil.
    I have kept the interesting material you enclosed with your letter (the CD and tape).
    If you would like the material back please write, or ring my office, and let me know and I will ensure it is returned to you Thank you again for sending it.
    Yours sincerely
    Hon Pete Hodgson
    Minister of Energy
    December 20th, 2002

    Snip –
    I understand from Caroline Parlane in the Ministry of Economic Development that you are in regular communication with her and have sent her a wealth of information? Articles, CDs and tapes on the issue of oil supplies. She has undertaken to let me know if she finds anything in that information of which I am not currently aware or of which she thinks I should be informed.

    Yours sincerely
    Hon Harry Duynhoven
    Associate Minister of Energy

    Here is someones else efforts to inform Pete http://oilcrash.com/articles/hodgson2.htm

Links to post

  1. The Standard: posted on 14 December 2010 at 6:23 pm