If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

Why would Andy up his offer from $26k to $100k? Seems like an admission of guilt to me?

It's often a prudent move to offer a 'without prejudice' payment in such a case. The court will sort it out, but he was a silly boy not apologising much earlier even if he thought he was right.

[BlackPeter]

Obviously Labour don't want their leader to be in a court case in election year. At least it'll be over by the end of the week. So even if Andrew is fairly sure of his case, making a payment would be tidier.

He's right, the finger of suspicion should be on the National Party, they would have suggested any nudge,nudge, wink,wink donation, if that is what occurred. This won't be in writing anywhere, they're not that stupid. I still think Andrew Little was doing his job, in pointing out another possible National Party deal with big business. Maybe he could have worded the press releases better, but it's incredibly undemocratic that the Hagamans are using the situation to try and derail NZ's next parliamentary election. Most election votes are bought with dollars spent on marketing - Labour will be needing suitable donated funds to contest it.

EZ, you would have been the last I would have expected of victim bashing ... but I guess if the victim is not a Green Labour supporter, than this makes it probably o.k., doesn't it? Sad to see as well that you continue Little's little big mud throwing exercise.

And re derailing the next election ... I guess if Labour really wants to win than they first need to pick a halfway capable leader and good policies. Don't blame the Hagamans. The only one to blame for the current mess is an inept Labour Leader and the people who put him into this position.

Stop throwing mud and start to do something positive ...

[craic]

He is doing something positive - guaranteeing that we can go another few years with Labour away from the purse strings.

[BlackPeter]

He is doing something positive - guaranteeing that we can go another few years with Labour away from the purse strings.

fair enough ...

[winner69]

Twitter could influence he election .......how could you not vote for somebody who tweets like his-


@garethmorgannz
Replying to @five15design
How can you differentiate a Kiwi **** from a foreign one? Visitors shouldn't have the same rights anyway. Kiwis just get a big fine

[jonu]

Obviously Labour don't want their leader to be in a court case in election year. At least it'll be over by the end of the week. So even if Andrew is fairly sure of his case, making a payment would be tidier.

He's right, the finger of suspicion should be on the National Party, they would have suggested any nudge,nudge, wink,wink donation, if that is what occurred. This won't be in writing anywhere, they're not that stupid. I still think Andrew Little was doing his job, in pointing out another possible National Party deal with big business. Maybe he could have worded the press releases better, but it's incredibly undemocratic that the Hagamans are using the situation to try and derail NZ's next parliamentary election. Most election votes are bought with dollars spent on marketing - Labour will be needing suitable donated funds to contest it.

I think the Hagaman's are intent on clearing their good name, not sabotaging the election. If Andrew Little had the nouse to be PM he would have raised his concerns in the house. That slur on the Hagamans is beneath your normal standards EL Z

[blackcap]

I think the Hagaman's are intent on clearing their good name, not sabotaging the election. If Andrew Little had the nouse to be PM he would have raised his concerns in the house. That slur on the Hagamans is beneath your normal standards EL Z

What El Zorro may also wish to know is that the Hagaman's are philanthropic people. They have also donated to the Labour party amoungst other charities in the past....

[westerly]

I think the Hagaman's are intent on clearing their good name, not sabotaging the election. If Andrew Little had the nouse to be PM he would have raised his concerns in the house. That slur on the Hagamans is beneath your normal standards EL Z

When the right to free speech in universities is being defended by a letter signed by prominent New Zealanders it is probably time to question NZ’s rather restrictive libel laws.
The leader of the main opposition party questions whether a donation to the National party is connected to a contract awarded to a company. He is then threatened with a libel case by the donor if he does not apologise.
It is the role of the opposition to query and criticize and should not necessarily be confined to parliament or be restricted by threats of legal action by an offended party.
Australia has restricted the maximum amounts awarded to aggrieved parties to relatively small amounts. NZ should follow.
Given the plaintiffs support for both Act and National over the years I cannot imagine them doing Labour any favours.

westerly

[elZorro]

What El Zorro may also wish to know is that the Hagaman's are philanthropic people. They have also donated to the Labour party amoungst other charities in the past....

Yes, the Labour party was probably well funded during the Rogernomics period. I think that their fundraising under Helen Clark's years was good too. But more recently Mr Hagaman made numerous donations to the ACT party, and also to National.

[Baa_Baa]

... The leader of the main opposition party questions whether a donation to the National party is connected to a contract awarded to a company. He is then threatened with a libel case by the donor if he does not apologise ...

That's a rather convenient version of the truth, depending on ones viewpoint. Mr Little did not just "question" the donation, he openly slagged the donor, not once, not twice, but three times in various interviews and that was after he had gone public on his concerns related to links government decisions.

Notwithstanding that this will all comes out in the court case, Mr Little appears to have become emboldened by the media interest and his 'duty' as leader of the opposition, thereupon stepping over the line and directly accusing the donors, in language unbecoming of anyone with moral fortitude. Worse still, he seems now to realise he was just plain wrong in doing so and his defence is to minimise the political collateral damage and personal financial damage which appears to be imminently due.

What goes round comes around and Mr Little appears almost certain to rue the day that he didn't do his research thoroughly, got a head of steam up, slandered the donor, and failed miserably to manage the mounting fallout.