The fishing industry & NZ First
A former political adviser for Winston Peters lifts the lid on the two decades of collusion and between party and primary industry.
Winston Peters had dozed off during the meeting in 2001. He was woken by his advisor who handed him a $5000 cheque from fishing magnate Neil Penwarden and a report alleging corruption in the scampi quota system.
After taking both, he left.
This set the stage for the so-called ‘‘Scampi Inquiry’’, which started after Peters alleged corruption in the industry during a speech inside the house, as outlined in Penwarden’s report, then failed to deliver any evidence after it began.
‘‘It was suggested it was common these sorts of meetings usually generated a donation,’’ Penwarden says. ‘‘We gave the party $5000. I don’t know if it made it to the party.’’
Peters was asked direct questions about this incident. His response was to call it ‘‘farcical’’, belittling the sources contacted individually. Penwarden was able to recall the details. So too was his advisor Ross Meurant who helped broker such meetings.
Meurant, a former National MP and detective was living in two worlds being employed both by Peters’ as an adviser and by Vela Fishing Group Companies at the same time.
Meurant says Peters becomes angry whenever someone challenges his own versions of events or stands up to him
‘‘I’m of the view that Winston believes his own version of events,’’ Meurant said.
Meurant is lifting the lid on a longstanding tradition of political influence from the fishing industry and NZ First dating back as far as 2001.
He is speaking out after reading a Stuff investigation into the New Zealand First Foundation. This apparent political slush fund began operating in 2017 to hide electoral donations and which kept legal control of money in the hands of Peters’ confidants Doug Woolerton and Brian Henry.
Foundation documents seen by Stuff show donations from companies and trusts with similar company directors. In 2018, $90,000 was donated from companies connected to New Zealand’s largest apartment builder Conrad Properties. Horse racing personalities feature. As do large donations from fishing juggernaut Peter Talley, a person Meurant crossed paths with often in the early 2000s.
Last week Greenpeace called on the prime minister to launch an external review into fishing decisions following the revelation about $25,000 was donated into foundation coffers and hidden away from the public.
These donations have the potential to be undeclared conflicts of interest, Greenpeace executive director Dr Russel Norman said.
Meurant’s disclosures show these potential conflicts of interest could have spanned two decades.
He admits when working for both Peters and Vela he personally handed Peters cheques for $9995 written by – now deceased – Philip Vela on behalf of Vela Group Companies.
‘‘After I delivered three cheques the anxiety or uncertainty between Vela and Winston abated. Their relationship strengthened noticeably and I increasingly was not required to carry the cheques,’’ he said.
‘‘I did, however, remain proximate enough to that aspect of matters to say now that I know many more donations flowed in the form of a cheque drawn on a variety of Vela Group companies.’’
For years he kept his silence on the cache of cheques delivered to Peters leading up to the Scampi Inquiry, but no longer.
‘‘I believe it’s important that NZ is reminded of what appears to be a systemic course of conduct,’’ he said. ‘‘[These events are] historic but it puts it into the perspective of what’s happening now.’’
Meurant says he expected a call from the Serious Fraud Office in 2008 after another donations scandal – that of the Spencer Trust - was being investigated. That secretive trust was administered by Peters’ brother and also received donations intended for NZ First. While no illegal activity was detected, Peters was forced to amend party donation records for 2006, 2007 and 2008.
‘‘The disclosure of the workings of Spencer Trust disappointed me,’’ Meurant said. ‘‘And now we have the New Zealand First Foundation.’’
Cheques were deliberately written to be just below the then minimum disclosure levels at $9995 but more than money was changing hands.
‘‘Vela was also speaking to other fishing companies and all of them had ideas for Peters or wanted to get messages to him,’’ Meurant said.
Part of Meurant’s job was to take advice from fishing company representatives, often faxed to him, from people in the industry and use that information to form questions for Peters to ask in the house.
Meurant had told Peters the fishing industry was a neglected source of political party revenue.
‘‘I remember saying to Winston when he wanted to build the party, you will need a lot of money,’’ he says. ‘‘Cake stands are not going to cut the mustard. In my years in parliament, I was exposed to the fishing industry and these guys are neglected, could-be major contributors to the party who need help. I can introduce you.’’
Those introductions started a flow of cheques and drinking sessions where fishing was discussed over Wild Turkey Bourbon. Peters ingratiated his way into the fishing and racing businesses. The main player was Vela Fisheries – then headed by the now-deceased Philip Vela – who owned a fishing fleet and a horse bloodstock business.
Then there was Peter Talley who, along with his brother Andrew, had been willing to back Peters over the years. They took over their father’s sizeable fishing business in 1964 and expanded to include vegetable, dairy and meat divisions. The Talley’s were still making donations to the NZ First Foundation as recently as April 2019.
Penwarden, likewise, was a fisherman struggling to get more scampi quota. Though not political in nature they started speaking to politicians after winning a $500,000 lawsuit proving he had been mistreated by the Ministry of Fisheries.
‘‘We were advised by .... parties I can’t recall .... that we needed to or should introduce politics into this decision,’’ Penwarden said.
‘‘It was recommended that Winston Peters was the sort of politician who would be helpful.’’
Peters started strong and made a rousing speech alleging corruption in the fishing industry. On April 24, 2002 Peters claimed to have ‘‘voluminous evidence’’ to back up his claims, but when the inquiry started he provided no evidence.
‘‘You’d have to be significantly unimpressed when a politician takes an issue in where you’re seeing unfairness,’’ Penwarden said. ‘‘He came in, looked at our situation and began to address that and all of a sudden he does a totally visible 180.’’
Meurant says Peters changed targets from scampi and gave evidence on hoki. This change happened after he received a call from Vela.
‘‘I got a phone call from Vela following Peters’ speech who said, ‘The Ma¯ ori Boy’s’ in trouble and you better get back here’.’’ Meurant, who was residing in Australia at the time, flew back to meet with Peters.
The major scampi player, Simunovich Fisheries, was demanding an apology from Peters behind the scenes. ‘‘I suggested he give them one,’’ Meurant says. ‘‘ Peters was ropeable when it became public.’’
‘‘I believe it’s important that NZ is reminded of what appears to be a systemic course of conduct... it puts it into the perspective of what’s happening now.’’
Ross Meurant
When the inquiry began Peters moved from prosecutor to defender and needed to save face by targeting hoki.
Meurant prepared Peters a report, he called the ‘Exocet’ after a French anti-naval missile.
‘‘This [Exocet] was a deliberate attempt to take the heat away,’’ he said. ‘‘He was under pressure from the media saying, ‘You’ve been bought off’.’’
Peters presented findings in the Exocet on May 7, 2003 but Penwarden simply called it a ‘‘smokescreen’’.
Chair of the Scampi Inquiry, David Carter, labelled Peter’s presentation as ‘‘incoherent gibberish’’.
While Meurant and Peters held a midnight toast to their Exocet ‘success’ in Peters’ parliamentary suite, there came a knock at the door. It was another fishing magnate, Peter Talley, who had a hoki quota.
‘‘I have no idea how he got in there,’’ Meurant said. ‘‘He came in. Took Peters to his suite and abruptly came out. Peters looked distressed. I won’t say what I heard unless I’m in a court of law. In front of a jury, I’ll tell them. I’ll say it all.’’
The final Scampi Inquiry report was scathing of the lack of evidence produced.
Carter said Peters’ behaviour throughout was odd. ‘‘When the inquiry was initiated he kicked his own NZ First member off the Select Committee and came on board,’’ he said.
‘‘He then argued there wasn’t any skulduggery and took a 180-degree view on scampi .’’
As time dripped on more and more questions started to emerge about cheques going to the NZ First Party, and not just those from Vela.
‘‘It would seem to me there’s a regularity in which accusations are made against Peters and NZ First about funding arrangements,’’ Carter says.
Media interest peaked during the Scampi
Inquiry when a wild affidavit from Meurant’s partner made claims of a horse bridle-full of $300,000 of cash from Simunovich and Meurant allegedly saying ‘‘It’s brown paper bag time,’’ before a meeting with Peters.
‘‘It’s utter crap,’’ Meurant said. ‘‘There was never $300k in cash and you don’t need a brown paper bag to hand over cheques,’’ Meurant said.
He says he never handed money from Simunovich to Peters, only cheques from Vela.
When media revealed Meurant’s double-life for Vela and Peters he resigned his NZ First position.
‘‘I had a conflict of interest and I accept that,’’ Meurant says. ‘‘It all exploded.’’ He admits that had media not discovered this double life he would have kept on working for both parties.
Peters would not respond to Stuff’s questions related to the Foundation, a tactic he has employed often. When asked about the meeting between Penwarden and the $5000 expected donation, Peters’ response was to call the sources ‘‘farcical’’. ‘‘Even you will realise that I have referred your questions to my lawyer, as I will any published article that flows from them,’’ NZ First’s chief of staff Jon Johansson wrote to Stuff on behalf of Peters.
When Stuff contacted Talley he said that he ‘‘did not want anything to do with talking about Ross Meurant’’ before hanging up the phone.
The Spencer Trust was operated by Peters’ brother Wayne and appeared to be similar in nature to the secretive New Zealand First Foundation with donations money hidden away from both the Electoral Commission and the NZ First political party’s officeholders.
This allowed Peters – or his confidants – to control the party expenditure directly and side-step his own board. The political blowback increased after it was revealed, billionaire Owen Glenn claimed he thought he was giving $100,000 to NZ First – a claim which Peters famously denied by holding up a handwritten sign reading ‘‘no’’ in response to journalists’ questions. This bad press helped sink Peters at the 2008 election. NZ First won only 4.07 per cent of the vote and disappeared from parliament for the first – and only – time since being formed.
Peters’ playbook to the latest allegations has included legal threats, intimidation, claims of media bias and redirection towards the National Party’s Serious Fraud Office investigation.
First Peters claimed he knew nothing of the New Zealand First Foundation. Then minutes from the March 13, 2017 board of directors meeting revealed he was briefed on the Foundation. Then it had nothing to do with the NZ First political party. Then he claimed, via his Facebook page, the ‘‘donors’’ had their privacy breached. Finally, as journalists working on the story met with contacts and were photographed, he claimed, ‘‘We took the photos’’. His reason: ‘‘to prove this sort of thing was going on’’. Later Peters’ issued a statement denying involvement.
But there are also numerous questions he has refused to answer. Multiple times direct questions have been sent to Peters relating to the Foundation and people associated with it and no response was given. Once when asked if he knew Foundation Trustee Doug Woolerton was acting as a lobbyist for property developers who had donated $90,000 into the Foundation the response was to send a ‘‘Chinese proverb’’ about stringing longbows.
With no answers, other sources have come forward and there are many willing to talk.
Former Treasurer of NZ First Colin Forster said the party was ‘‘on the bones of its arse’’ and he could never understand where money was coming from.
Former President of NZ First Lester Gray resigned after saying he did not have the financial data to sign off on the financial records.
For his part, Meurant says he did not see his behaviour as any different from what other industries were doing at the time. It is common for industries to bend the ear of politicians to highlight an issue. He compares the meetings to dinners of the former dairy board (that was wound up into Fonterra) or similar industry junkets. ‘‘People in charge of industries want to tell politicians about their problems,’’ he said.
‘‘The thing I’m trying to capture is that is part of the system. The questions then are, as a result of such a meeting, money donations are made and that is not necessarily corrupt. When there is a regular flow of cheques on demand that may cause people to think that barrier has been crossed.’’
Meurant is adamant Vela was honourable in his dealings with Peters and never asked for influence. He says Vela liked Peters, but not his policies.
‘‘Vela was an honourable man and never gave money for favours,’’ he said. ‘‘He believed it was a contribution to democracy. He never knew where the money ended up.’’
When asked how this cycle of donation scandals is able to continue he simply shrugs. ‘‘No one has done anything about it,’’ he said.
Penwarden never gave any more money to NZ First or to Peters. He says he had learned his lesson. Likewise, other donors to the NZ First Foundation shared this sentiment. Some even asked for the money back.
‘‘The point is: we learned a lot of Winston Peters and over time standing back and observing his behaviour we were not persuaded in any way about his credibility, honesty and decency and suitability to be involved in politics,’’ Penwarden says.