Gerry Eckhoff

More backgrounder so you can understand the Scampi Scandal and why the secret tape was suppressed.

This is the valedictory speech of Ian Ewen-Street.

Richard, in case you hadn’t noticed, Sue is young, beautiful and highly intelligent, whereas I’m…. well, I’m not. Even my kindest friends would describe me as middle-aged, overweight and bald. Richard, that’s not a scandal, it’s a bloody miracle!

But I knew I’d chosen the right woman a few days later when we were walking through the Bowen House tunnel and came across Richard Prebble, so I stopped to introduce them. It’s not often you see him stumped for words, but he uttered not a syllable when Sue greeted him with the words “Hello Richard, thank you for making me famous!” and he was still recovering and backing off towards the travellator when Sue called out – “but watch out for my father, he still wants to kill you!” That’s my girl!!

Yes, the scampi scandal! I can joke about it now, but it was undoubtedly a difficult time for me. But a great lesson in life’s rich tapestry. A great experience in finding out who one’s friends are – or even more pertinently, who one’s friends aren’t!

My sincere thanks to all the members of the Primary Production Committee – especially David Carter, Doug Woolerton, Clayton Cosgrove, Gerry Eckhoff, Dover Samuels, Phil Heatley, Janet Mackey and Harry Duynhoven – I know I became the subject of some wonderful jokes for you, but I am also aware that your friendship and support kept me sane through that time. Thank you!

Working in the PPSC was a real highlight for me. I enjoyed the work, I enjoyed your company – including the support staff of Bob Bunch, Mary Hay and Steven Mitchell – and I shall miss you all.

But I also have to say that I am convinced that you got parts of the scampi inquiry badly wrong. I believe you shot the messenger and allowed the real culprits to get away with perpetrating one of the biggest frauds and one of the gravest injustices in NZ history.

I struggle with the suggestion from some people that there was no evidence of any wrong-doing. There was. Affidavits are sworn evidence. They have convicted murderers in the past. I agree that someone may argue that it may not be possible to string together a long sequence of events and say that they prove a certain outcome, but if you treat each piece of evidence as a piece of a jigsaw puzzle, there are more than enough pieces to see the overall picture of premeditated offending. And please don’t forget the evidence of the people who made submissions to the PPSC, but had their evidence returned because they alleged criminal behaviour and that was outside the terms of reference for the inquiry. How can you weigh up evidence if you send it back to the submitter, especially if you then claim there is no evidence?

If the next government wants to follow up on the scampi issue and restore my faith in the political system, I suggest that a good place to start their enquiries would be Helen Cull QC, the lawyer who convened the State Services Commission inquiry which ran in parallel with the PPSC inquiry. She got it right. She knows pretty much what happened, but her final report does not reflect this because her terms of reference were limited to investigating the role of the Ministry of Fisheries. I believe she should be asked to publish her real findings and the people guilty of raping and pillaging the scampi fishery brought to account.

I think the incoming government should also heed the words of former Prime Minister Sir Geoffrey Palmer when he described the criticism of the Ministry of Fisheries by both the PPSC and the State Services Commission as the most scathing criticism of a government department in NZ history. But what has happened as a consequence? Did anyone get sacked? Pensioned off? Slapped on the wrist with a wet bus ticket? No, nothing. The then CEO of the Ministry put out a press release saying that the Ministry had been vindicated. They had not. He should have been falling on his sword, but instead he continued the fantasy within the Ministry that somehow they are beyond the law, that they can ignore the rulings of the High Court and the Court of Appeal with impunity. And that they can ignore Parliament.

I believe the Ministry should also be made aware of their responsibilities under the Fisheries Act (and international treaties) to address the social and economic well-being of coastal communities. It is simply unacceptable that small fishers in such fisheries as cockles, whelks, geoducs, paddle-crabs, pilchards and others can be put out of business and their lives destroyed by the whim of ministry officials. The RMA is a tool in the toolbox of the management of fisheries, it is not an end in itself. And it most certainly should not be there for the purpose of hugely enriching a small number of fishers at the expense of others and the ecological sustainability of the fishery.

It is my opinion that this is a Ministry which needs a thorough shake-up in the upper echelons of the bureaucracy and imbued with the realization that they are public servants. They are paid to serve the public interest and they are there to manage the ecological sustainability of the fisheries of this country.

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.