Labour’s Dirty Politics – Coward Parker defames and smears with no evidence

We have now seen Labour’s Dirty Politics tactics in actions with the brazen coward David Parker standing in the General Debate yesterday and outrageously smearing and defaming Mark Hotchin, Carrick Graham, Cathy Odgers and myself.

I have had two people make worrying allegations to me. One is a former staff member of the Serious Fraud Office who told me at the time the Serious Fraud Office commenced their investigation, a former advisor to Hotchins contacted this person and said, “Hotchins plays a rough game. You watch out. He will use underhand tactics to undermine the Serious Fraud Office and their staff”

The second allegation I have had made to me was that Mr Hotchins used underhand tactics to take out some of the potential witnesses against him in respect of his conduct by Hanover.

Now I can’t name either of those sources and I can’t prove those allegations to be true and they are both hearsay allegations to me, but these allegations must be investigated.

He can’t name them, he has no evidence, it is hearsay at best and yet he demands an investigation? Is this man really a lawyer?

Not a shred of evidence. Even Winston Peters produces evidence.

It is obvious that he has spent too much time running one up his crippled mate’s missus instead reading the Chisholm report.

After days in the house with Andrew Little claiming that National runs a smear machine it was David Parker who displayed the most outrageous smear seen in the parliament in a long, long time.   

Worse still he has no evidence, just whispers and hearsay.

He lacks the courage to step outside the house and repeat his allegations.

If Andrew Little is really committed to a clean Labour party he would calling on David Parker to either front up and repeat the allegations outside the house or to resign in disgrace.

Little should act on this, it really is an egregious attack, and all behind the protection of parliamentary privilege.

Parker is a lawyer so he cannot claim to not be aware of what he was doing.

If Andrew Little doesn’t haul in Parker and demand proof published outside of parliament, or a personal statement to the house apologising and then demanding his head for undermining his campaign for clean politics then Andrew Little deserves to hang with David Parker.

Labour already have the dreadful spectre of dirty politics stalking them and it is only a matter of time before that breaks loose. Their constant refrain over Dirty Politics is going to cause their undoing because when the scale of the conspiracy is revealed voters will be left with no other conclusion that Labour was a party to a criminal conspiracy to bring down a government, and right to the very top of the labour party too.

These desperate scurrilous attacks merely serve to confirm that “Vote Positive ” wasn’t a coincidence and was actually part of a bigger plan and conspiracy.

We really have no other choice but to include they were working in conjunction with the criminals.

Will Little act and force Parker’s hand or will Little be the proverbial possum caught in the headlights when the real dirty politics is revealed.

Does David Parker have the stones to repeat his claims outside of parliament? …If he doesn’t we know he has got nothing and is just another nasty labour politician conducting his own dirty politics.

 

 


THANK YOU for being a subscriber. Because of you Whaleoil is going from strength to strength. It is a little known fact that Whaleoil subscribers are better in bed, good looking and highly intelligent. Sometimes all at once! Please Click Here Now to subscribe to an ad-free Whaleoil.

  • Wheninrome

    He must have had “stones” once given his relationship with his mate’s wife.

    • HR

      No stones, no backbone either.

  • phronesis

    Hotchins, Keys. Ever notice that the more feral on the left insist on adding an S to the end of the names of those they try to demonise. Very odd.

    • shykiwibloke

      You mean like Cunliffes, Littles and Normans?

  • Cowgirl

    It amazes me that Labour thought they could push the ‘Dirty Politics’ line and that voters would just fall into line with it and vote for them. It surprises me they just didn’t go the whole hog and try and tamper with results – that would surely be the obvious way for a ‘foolproof’ plan like that to succeed. If you’re prepared to break the law, why not really commit to the cause?

  • James

    Liebour having problems with the truth? Next thing you’ll be telling me that bears defecate in forested areas.

  • niggly

    On Radio NZ Parker complains that Hager is under Police investigation whereas Cameron isn’t.

    How can Andrew Little stand behind his deluded MP Parker, who doesn’t seem to understand reality: A crime was committed and Hager was the recipient of stolen information whereas Cameron wasn’t involved in anything criminal and was the victim of the crime.

    Does Parker and thus Labour stand up for criminals (and not the innocent)? Does Little stand behind criminal activity?

    • Victims of crime don’t need to be investigated. However those who have admitted using information which they publicly acknowledge they know was stolen should be. That’s hardly rocket science, unless you are a former lawyer from Dunedin and a three-time loser in electorate contests.

  • Damon Mudgway

    Reinforces my view that ‘being a lawyer’ does not necessarily equate to ‘being particularly intelligent’.

    • I have yet to have an experience with the profession that I found to be positive. And all of those were supposedly working for me. As a result I now do business on a letter of understanding and a handshake. My view is that by the time you need a lawyer, your relationship is already broken. The LOU may not be ‘legally’ watertight, but it stands as an agreement at a point of time where two parties were aligned to set out to do something together. That’s good enough to start arguing over once things have fallen apart.

      • Damon Mudgway

        To be fair, I do know a lot of exceptionally good lawyers, and by that I mean people I TRUST.

        I think the biggest hurdle the legal profession faces is exactly that point. A lot of people don’t trust lawyers.

        Now, my family lawyer I trust, but bless his cotton socks he’s gone and retired (probably not a bad thing as he was becoming a bit of a ‘nana’).

        But the fact remains a good few lawyers do not act in the interests of their clients, they act in the interests of their wallets.

        • It’s your last sentence that is half of the problem – at times it maddens you as to the apparently open-ended process where the changes and discussions appear to be endless and with only the aim of prolonging the billing period in mind.

          Other occasions have included gob smacking pragmatism where a lawyer paid out $200 more to another party that was due to me and told me to get over it, it was only $200. Then there are utter bastards in conveyancing that don’t release the keys to the house until 5:30 on a Friday when you and your household gear has been sitting there waiting since 11am. And then… seriously, I’ve been bitten too many times.

          That said, I don’t judge the whole profession, but I find it moves in ways that defines logic, seems to cost people huge chunks of equity, and delivers at best a lose/lose situation where even winning doesn’t really get you ahead. You just lose less then the bigger loser.

          The best way is to never put yourself in a position where you need a lawyer I guess. *sigh*

          • Monito

            Yes but regrettably we do need them to sell or buy a house, to make a will to see to any problems that arise but I have a personal policy now to get a written quote before I even speak to them. And never again will I trust a lawyer with my recent experience the car dealer was more honest than the lawyer and that is really saying something.

          • Hardie Martin

            I had one who wanted to retain the keys. He was told in no uncertain terms using my Army Warrant Officers voice that I had paid cash for the f place and that if he didn’t hand my f keys over forthwith the next person through the door would be an f policeman who would arrest him for f theft. It stopped his office in thier tracks. He did what was good for him – he was going to have a really bad Friday otherwise..

        • Monito

          I trusted my lawyer implicitly with my estate, my will and everything I needed but when they saw earthquake cash settlement, they got greedy and I will never ever forgive or forget the betrayal.

  • armotur

    Hiding behind “Parlimentary Privelege” is to me a clear sign that the person has no evidence. Parker admits it is hearsay and ignores a Judges view on the subject. So why is he doing it- to continue Labours and now Littles smear campaign.

    Such is the opposition of today. Labour is destined to be the opposition of many tomorrow’s by pursuing this approach.

    Little would do well to stop this and continue his effort to convince the voter that his Labour Party has something to offer. Good Luck with that Mr. Little, especially with the sort of help you are getting from Parker!

  • Labour (and indeed us) expected a news story to break yesterday that they wanted to shunt sideways. Due to unforeseen circumstances, that story has been delayed. The amusing part of Parker’s “production for Media” piece is that it ended up being a wasted effort, and they can’t repeat it. As the same story is still potentially pending today, I wonder what their stunt to grab the headlines is today.

    • As the same story is still potentially pending today, I wonder what their stunt to grab the headlines is today.

      All this suspense is doing my head in! I’m sure I’m not alone in just wanting the truth to come out, and Labour’s hypocrisy to be exposed in such a manner that it is impossible for the MSM to ignore it.

    • tesrodnz

      So they needed a distraction piece and Parker got the straw???

    • Bayman

      Why don’t you break it then??

    • MaryLou

      Don’t worry Pete. They’ll come up with something to take it’s place.

  • ‘Not a shred of evidence. Even Winston Peters produces evidence’ – a Tui for sure!

    • Yes, I think “occasionally” was dropped there ;)

  • Just a thought….

    Let’s hope that any ” revelations” are not lost in the Xmas rush so easily swept under the carpet and forgotten about by the time parliament and everyone else starts again in late January……

  • Alexander K

    Labour has descended to a new low – as a taxpayer, I feel increasingly angry that shifty and totally dishonest members for Labour such as Parker are working hard to smear anyone that they feel subverted Labour’s fondly-imagined inaliable right to govern the country. As Cam lays out in the article above, Parker should take his allegations outside the house, where they can be properly challenged and shown to be the utter nonsense they are. But I guess that would mean that Parker would have to front up with some actual evidence that stand up in a court.
    It seems that the Greens are not the only party that runs on monnbeams and Unicorn droppings.

    • Kiwibabe

      It is best that the present Labour Party continues with this nonsense so that hopefully they never get in as part of an incompetent and destructive coalition. Almost as bad would be for them to get enough votes to leave National without a majority.

  • Kelvinmyhero

    From the NZ Parliament website:

    The privilege of free speech in Parliament carries an obligation to use
    it responsibly. The House has the ability to punish for contempt and an
    example of contempt would be to mislead the House or a committee
    deliberately (see below).

    Surely, Parker’s statements fall into the category of contempt if it is proved he has mislead Parliament?

    • Damon Mudgway

      The inner sanctum is like a warm bed with snuggly fluffy sheets on a bitterly cold day. As only the House can punish, little missteps like Parkers can be easily appeased by shouting the House lamingtons and sausage rolls.

  • BJ

    “Now I can’t name either of those sources and I can’t prove those allegations to be true and they are both hearsay allegations to me, but these allegations must be investigated.”

    I think he made this all up himself.
    And as far as dirty politics is concerned I have been trying to find a video clip of a press conference when Matt McCarten started his Chief of Staff role for Labour in Feb – if my recollection is correct – he said something to the affect: it would be a dirty campaign. It would be great if someone has the ability to find that so we could revisit what exactly he did say.

  • Pete

    The lying coward Harry Reid did a similar thing to Mitt Romney when he stood up and said Romney hadn’t paid his taxes for 10 years. Proved to be a lie, but the media just repeated it often enough so that stupid people believed it.

    I seem to remember that the Labour party had some Democratic strategists helping them out before the election…am I right in thinking that??? if so, you can see which way the idiots are going.

    • Debs.nz

      Been watching American politics seriously for a few years now and you are right. Labour’s behaviour is more and more mirroring the Democrats nastiness and wilful slandering. America is being ripped apart by the left. Oh the joys to look forward to!

  • Chiefsfan73

    May!day may!day I’m in trouble I got nothing what shooed I do.
    Answer sling speculative mud.

  • DavidW

    There needs to be some sort of threshold that an MP using PP needs to meet or face severe sanctions.
    This could be that if petitioned, the Speaker MUST investigate and the MP MUST satisfy him that there is sufficient heat to suspect a fire – smoke is insufficient evidence upon which to destroy a citizen’s reputation and possibly his/her livelihood.
    A possible alternative could be the Chief Justice (although I would not place a lot of faith in Dame Sean Elias to perform this role to a satisfactory level).
    The Privileges Committee is a joke being made up of MPs all of whom are highly protective of their rights even if that is contrary to the best interests of an member or group of members of the community.
    Winston Peters has made an art form of spurious allegations and in recent years Shane Jones was proven to be hunting a mythical creature with his accusations of commercial bullying against a supermarket chain. Between them and now Parker, they have done a lot to destroy any credibility that might have been attached to the title MP.
    I would hate it to just become a big yawn and for MPs to be free to spout totally fallacious statements or accusations without the full force of the community being brought to bear.
    Once every three years for accountability is not enough

  • Simon

    Oh right so Hotchins a really good guy after all, thanks for claifying that Cam

    • MaryLou

      I didn’t see him say that anywhere in the article – at all. Personally I think Hotchin has gotten away with a lot – but the point of the article, and what should matter to all of us living here, is that you CANNOT run around saying anything you happen to feel like about someone, without a shred of proof, an accuser who won’t stand behind their words, and hide behind parliamentary privilege. How can it even be hearsay, when the person who supposedly said it, won’t stand behind what they said either? This is hideous! Next we just need secret denunciations, and we can be just like the USSR.

  • Catriona

    Let’s get real here – Hotchins is not a good guy. He and Amanda (let them eat cake) Hotchins deserve everything negative they get.
    Let me remind you Mr and Mrs Hotchins – when your time comes, you will be like everyone else in the graveyard.

    • Bayman

      Hotchin!!!! Stop adding an S!!!

  • You are a grubby little bugger.

  • Tom McKechnie

    This vile smear by David Parker comes on the back of Matiria Turei’s accusation of Police double standards.
    Nicky Hager’s book was the left’s ticket to the promised land. Their failure to get there was because the voting public saw right through the left’s dirty politics, and ensured that Labour & the Greens got nowhere near Government.
    The left staked their political futures on the contents of stolen information and cannot let go.

  • ShoreRight

    Who the hang does he think is listening to this stuff……none of your “poverty stricken” Labour voters would even understand that garbage and your trendy beltway lefties are already watermelon voters anyway…who is going to be swayed by that fast paced verbal outpouring of rubbish?

  • Kiwibabe

    Keep it up Parker, well researched and factual with all the details just like his 4 years developing his CGT hot air.
    They should stick to conspiracy because they have proven to have nothing in the policy realm.

52%