No Right Turn on Peters
July 21st, 2008 at 5:06 pm by David FarrarIdiot/Savant at No Right Turn calls for Peters to be sacked:
The Prime Minister responded today to Winston Peters’ admission that, contrary to his earlier denials, he had been $100,000 by Owen Glenn, calling it “embarrassing”. It’s a little more than that. Not only did Peters violate Parliament’s Standing Orders on the declaration of gifts (something which Rodney Hide will be complaining about today) – he also violated Cabinet guidelines. The Cabinet Manual has extensive sections on Ministerial conduct and the acceptance of gifts. The short version: Ministers must clearly distinguish between their personal interests and their Ministerial roles, declare all pecuniary interests, and refuse all gifts except from close family members. This includes both cash and donations in kind: …
He should have declared it, and then relinquished it. He did neither. And this is something no Prime Minister should accept. The Cabinet rules on gifts are there for a real purpose: to prevent corruption, and the perception of corruption. Peters has blatantly violated those rules, and for that he must either offer his resignation or be sacked.
Plus he should be made to pay the $100,000 back. Unless Helen authorises him to keep it as a golden handshake.
Unfortunately, I rate the odds of the Prime Minister having a spine on this about as highly as I rate those of Parliament’s “all powerful” (where do the journalists get that phrase from?) Privileges Committee finding that Peters violated Standing orders. The realities of MMP mean Peters has a gun to the Prime Minister’s head – she can’t fire him, regardless of his egregious behaviour, unless she wants her tenure as PM to end prematurely in a messy coalition collapse. Unfortunately, this means she and her party get to go down with him, because I do not think that the image of a PM permitting Ministers to receive donations in brown paper bags from people who want favours from them is one the public will accept.
Clark will show no spine on this. But I think she will regret this. She should live up to her many words of the need for transparency in political financing.
I have to say I would like National to be somewhat more forceful on this also. I understand targeting Clark (esp as Peters is away) and her responses is the main priority for the Opposition, but they do need to be very very clear that this sort of behaviour would not be tolerated in a National-led Government where it is okay for Ministers to personally benefit by $100,000 from someone seeking favours from them.
I/S is right that one of the weaknesses of MMP is MPs in minor parties can get away with behaviour, other parties could not.
As for the Privileges Committee, let’s look at that. I am assuming that there is absolutely no doubt the Speaker will have to refer the issue to them. The threshold is merely that here is a question to answer, and no one could possibly argue there isn’t at least a question to answer. This is not the same as saying the verdict is beyond doubt. Until we know who the cheque was actually made out to, and which bank account it went into, one can not be conclusive on these things.
So who makes up the Privileges Committee. Let us first look at who is on there will will try hard to make the thing go away:
Labour – Cullen, Dalziel, Fairbrother, Swain – 4
NZ First – Peters (will be a sub for him – any other MP except Dail Jones I predict) – 1
Greens – Turei – 1
Some may argue Turei will show integrity and actually support motions to order copies of the accounts, invite Owen Glenn to testify etc etc. But considering the silence of the Greens to date, I am not optimistic.
Now who on there may reasonably be regarded as likely to vote for a full investigation?:
National – Brownlee, Guy, Mapp, Power (Chair) – 4
United Future – Dunne – 1
Maori Party – Harawira – 1
ACT – Hide (will be Roy if he makes the complaint) – 1
So by a 7-6 majority (or 8-5 if I am pleasantly surprised), the Privileges Committee should be able to exercise some independence from the Government line. Peter Dunne is a Minister of course but I actually have considerable faith that he will be offended by what has happened and want a full accounting.
Because of this the Government will be lobbying Margaret Wilson furiously to find a way not to send it to Privileges Committee. But the problem they have is that this is a near perfect fit as a question of privilege. The paying off of a debt on an MP’s behalf is explicitly listed as an item for inclusion in the register. Winston and Brian Henry have both admitted the debts are in his name and he is liable for any shortfall. And the burden of proof here is not beyond reasonable doubt – just that there is a question to be answered.
UPDATE: Former Chair/Spokesperson of the Young Greens, George Darroch, has blogged. He notes:
David Farrar correctly notes that left blogs have for the most part have ignored the Winston Peters donation scandal. And so far, that has included this blog. I have no ordinary desire to write about that man and his party, they disgust me enough that I feel dirty even mentioning their names.
If you lie with the dogs, you’re sure to catch fleas. Labour made their bed, they shouldn’t expect sympathy.
Now, Labour Party activists will tell me that they had no options after the 05 election. I don’t believe them. The Māori Party talked with the Labour Party after the election about coming to an arrangement, most likely support on confidence and supply. It would have meant the Labour Party being humble, certainly, and the repeal of the Seabed and Foreshore Act. There would have been other things that were hard to swallow. The relations between Clark and Māori Party in the years previous, and the fact that Labour’s biggest donor Owen Glenn had also patronised the party by offering $250,000 in return for a guarantee of support probably didn’t help.
It is a very valid point. Helen Clark chose Winston over the Maori Party and the Greens. She never even tried to negotiate a deal with them.
Related posts:
- No Right Turn on Clark re Peters
- Clark also damns Peters
- Clark confirms Peters stays regardless of Privileges
- Peters referred to Privileges Committee
July 21st, 2008 at 5:14 pm
How far can the privileges committee go? Just into this admitted donation that appears to reduce Peters’ personal debt? Or also into the money in the NZ1 bank account that turned up and mysteriously disappeared? And into Williams’ role in this whole thing?
It seems to me that the privileges committee may be interesting, but that there is a lot of dirt here that is beyond the remit of that committee.
I also think that Winston and Helen have got themselves into real trouble. They seem to have taken money with strings attached, but are clearly not in a position to deliver on the strings. Our friend Owen Glenn seems to think that those who weasel out of deals should be punished severely, and appears to have plenty of dirt to drip feed out. I can imagine that both those individuals are feeling a bit sick now. They can’t air all the dirty linen and get it over with, because it is too dirty. They cannot give Owen what he wants – it would be too obvious. The alternative seems to be to watch him “accidentally” drip out salacious little bits of dirt, allowing them to defend it with a web of deceit, only to have that web proven untrue by the next revelation. There really is nowhere to go – the right thing to do is to own up to everything, but that would destroy both of them.
For the centre right, it really doesn’t get any better than this.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Clark will show no spine on this. But I think she will regret this. She should live up to her many words of the need for transparency in political financing.”
Oh I don’t know. If Key brings it up in a leader’s debate I’m sure she could talk over him about how she is more concerned with running the country than with Winston’s business about how he funds his Party (when it has not been shown to be illegal, only immoral!)
If key does not bring it up in a leader’s debate then the media will forget about it in a few days, and so will most of the proletariat…
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:28 pm
RRM: I don’t think Key will bring it up. If he does, and after the election it turns out that he needs Winston to form a government, it would be very bad. Unless he is ballsy enough to decide that a) that isn’t a likely scenario any more, and b) that NZ politics is better off without Winston, and go for the jugular. My problem is working out what is in it for National – I’m not sure the reward outweighs the risk. Key is a numbers man, he’ll be doing the calculations. And, of course, there is the question of whether Key needs to do it himself – will Rodney and the privileges committee be enough? Will the media do the job for him? Problem is, if you wait it out to see, you may miss the opportunity.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:32 pm
You know, if we could just ditch this two-party hangover from FPP, there’d be less of the whole “leave the guy alone, cos we might need him after the election” stuff.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
You should have just heard Matthew Hooten talking to Susan Woods on Newstalk ZB.
Totally demolished peters and his claims and called for everyone from the privileges committee to the police to the accountants, law society and the electoral commission to have a go at him. Made his points very, very well.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Lets put it bluntlly ,winston peters is a mighty mongrel mob member wearing a suit. The mob bash and rape and BASH and try to take over?? WINSTON, (THE SLIME) PETERS and owen glen are trying a take over of the country with donations MONEY IN THE SLIME COFFERS?????UNCLE helen clark has been caught out she loves owen glens donations, (I WANT IT BITCH), not this time owen , monacos not yoursHA HA, WATCH OUT VOTERS the corrupt slime from uncle clark(love her deep manly voice and looks ,one of the boys) and BRO peter is going to rain on us (AFTERTHOUGHT (,NO CORRUPTION NOW IN NEW ZEALAND POLITICS )YER RIGHT, GREAT TUI AD
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
You know, if we could just ditch this two-party hangover from FPP, there’d be less of the whole “leave the guy alone, cos we might need him after the election” stuff.
Though I suppose it could conceivably become “leave everyone alone, cos we’ll need them all after the election”.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:43 pm
What price our democracy?
Ironically NZ’s democracy was not for sale at the time of the passing of the Electoral Finance Act,
Vote:NZ First and Labour had already sold it to Owen Glenn for less than a million dollars.
July 21st, 2008 at 5:47 pm
All corruption (or the appearance of it) is of course VERY undesirable, but New Zealand’s democracy sold to Owen Glenn? Please. FFS.
Owen Glenn: “Just a few more $100K donations to the left now, and that (unpaid) job in Monaco (helping kiwi backpackers who’ve lost their wallets, and getting invites to all the same Monaco parties I was already invited to) will be mine, all mine!
BWUUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!”
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Hooten also said that Owen Glenn tried to buy the NZ Government. He paid $500K to Labour, $100K to Winston First and (probably) offered the Maori Party $250K to support Labour. That’s $850K to get the government he wanted.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I wonder if you have to pay GST when you buy a democracy?
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 6:09 pm
Linda said
“Hooten also said that Owen Glenn tried to buy the NZ Government. He paid $500K to Labour, $100K to Winston First and (probably) offered the Maori Party $250K to support Labour. That’s $850K to get the government he wanted.”
He did get a gong………and a free trade deal, but he is on the record for wanting more. FTA with the states and dropping of the anti Nukes policy.
The evidence for moral and legal corruption (that we know of) is overwhelming at present. It makes the EFB look like the famous five!
Yet were is “investigative journalist”, Nicky Hager when the left are exposed publicly as corrupt and morally bankrupt?
Answer…….Probably raking through John Key’s rubbish to find that unpaid library fine from 1978!
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 6:25 pm
PaulL
The Privileges Committee is all-powerful if the issue transcends party lines. Just ask Rodney Hide – he criticised the Speaker in the late 1990′s was hauled before the Committee and when it reported to the House, he was ripped to shreds in the speeches, so much so he would have a case to complain to the UN about cruel and unusual punishments. In days of yore, the House could have a transgressor committed to jail (eg the Sheriff of Middlesex was jailed in 1839 by the British Parliament even though he was carrying out judges’ instructions, then the judges would not ‘spring’ him). At that time London sat in the County of Middlesex but AFAIK the county has been completely swallowed up by Greater London. Apparently early last century, NZ parliamentary staff prepared a basement room as a dungeon in case the House imprisoned a transgressor.
It would seem very doubtful if the Privileges Committee would have any ‘bite’ if an issue were decided on party political lines.
Thinking of attempts to get the dirt on John Key, an interesting tidbit emerged from Queensland from the Bjelke-Petersen era. The police chief resigned following the appointment of a corrupt deputy. During a later corruption inquiry someone tried to get the dirt on that police chief. The best he could do is find that he shoplifted something in Melbourne, then several years later returned to the shop to apologise and pay for the item.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Let us be clear about that debt. He owed the court $40,000 in COSTS for his electoral petition. Now that is a personal debt and no doubt that got paid by Owen Glen’s $100,000. How could Henry, his lawyer, not report that to Peters. Did he say something like don’t worry about the $40,000 it has been taken care of by the legal defence fund. But suddenly this legal defence fund is enriched by $100,000 in one swoop and Peters is claiming he knew NOTHING about that. Get a grip. I am pleased the media are treating the death of Peter’s mother as a strictly private matter (which it is) but are staying on the case over his public political problems.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Wilson will agree to take this to the Privileges Committee – Yeah Right!
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
A good post by I/S there. Winston, through act or omission, has mislead the House, the public, the IRD, etc, just as Hooten said on NatRad. He has flagrantly disregarded the conduct, conventions and laws set down as a Minister of the Crown. He must go.
If the Greens are genuinely remorseful of their support for some of the more anti-democratic elements of the EFA, they must then support a motion in the committee. The MP pecuniary notice was put in place by Rod Donald to mind for just this kind of thing. Winston has thumbed his nose at this, as he always had. If the Greens aren’t pissed with that, they’ll be tainted with hypocrisy.
For Labour, there’s no way out. Yes, they should have been more wary, learning from the Nats’ Winston Experience in the ’90s. They only have themselves to blame for letting the wolf in the door.
It all makes the fuss about the Exclusive Brethren seem piddly in comparison. Owen Glenn, the puppet master of Labour and NZ First, and possibly attempting to bribe the Maori Party with a quarter of a mill too. Owen gets an Honour and meantime, the plebs have to put their home address on their speech bubbles.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I hope Rodney hasn’t ruled himself out by laying the complaint. He is the one member who could really put Winston on the rack. Though Hone could also put the wind up him.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
Lets just say that the worst ever speaker (Maggot Wilson) does find a way (legally or illegally) of keeping this from going to the privileges committee, is that the end of it?..can one of the parties propose a motion of no confidence in the speaker?
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 7:34 pm
boomtownprat, you make Hager sound like Superman! Besides, a lot of info has come to light, what more do you want?
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 7:35 pm
NZ was once prosperous and rated well in all stats. This under ” First past the post”. Now we have MMP and aren’t we doing well.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 7:42 pm
Ryan is right, wouldn’t it be great if we could argue this with basic morality rather than worrying about what may or may not happen after the election. I would hope National nail Winston to the wall and essentially say “bugger you Winston, if we need coalition partners after the election you will be last on the list”
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 7:46 pm
The burning question in my mind at the moment is, What are the implications of the the major party in Government, assisting in the co-ordination of a large donation to enable a smaller party to legally attack it’s main opposition (albeit unsuccessfully).
Make no bones about it. The whole set of shennanigans has a very unseemly stench to it. Clark’s decision to deal with the matter as she has to date is manna from heaven for the center right and question-time tomorrow may well be required viewing.
Vote:With no Luigi in the house to run interference with ludicrous point’s of order, I guess we will see a number of statements from the government stating the usual “this is a NZ first internal matter”
July 21st, 2008 at 7:52 pm
Brian Henry on Close Up earlier tonight was not very convincing. He looked just like the sort of small-town lawyer that gets hauled up on Fair Go from time to time for real estate deals gone wrong. I wonder if the makeup crew at TVNZ were told to make him look slimy and dodgy (“Make him look like a fixer from the Sopranos”).
He started poorly by ignoring Sainsbury’s question and saying he (Henry) had just come “from the graveside”. It came across as rank political opportunism. He was also overbearing and arrogant with his “Let me finish” demands each time Sainsbury tried to cut through the waffle.
Surely this will see NZ First well below 5%?
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 7:53 pm
Hooton was good. It was one of the best commentaries to date on an issue that must concern all New Zealanders. Winston’s lawyer looked very slippery on Close Up. Every one of Winston and his lawyers protestations are ground to dust by the actions of straighter than straight Nick Smith. He may not be the most likeable politicians but his integrity is without question.
However the Nats must not back off this one – if they are to lead they must show greater integrity on this issue.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I agree with Ryan.
If the Nat’s are smart they can achieve both of their goals by playing this right, they can discredit Klark and finish Winston for good.
What it needs is a strong statement from Key that makes it perfectly clear that the Nat’s are disgusted with what Winston has done and an equally strong statement deploring the inaction of Klark.
Key needs to come out and tell the people that “under no circumstances will the National party negotiate with Winston Peters after the next election, Mr Peters has shown himself to be a man that the people just cannot trust, if the PM is that desperate to retain power then she can have him however the National party will not negotiate away the integrity of the party just to regain the treasury benches, if it means that we face another three years in opposition then so be it”
Key then needs to hammer this point for the next four months and keep reminding the pubic that Klark is the one who wants Peters in the house and keep reminding them that Klark is the one who harbors Peters, the end result will be the demise of Winston and the demise of dear corrupt leader, at the very worst it may well force Klark to dump Peters and call an early election.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Big Bruv. What you propose would be wonderful to see, but Winston is the worst sort of politician for MMP, the Unscrupulous Charmer. All he has to so is persuade 5% of voters, and there are potentially enough voters who lack the level of sophistication to see past this snake-oil salesman from Hunua to make this possible. Both Major parties know this.
However, this is the golden opportunity to bury a potential Labour co-alition partner. National should do what it should to keep the pot boiling by attacking Labour on this issue. Let Rodney Hide and ACT bury Winston. If Act can eliminate NZ First as a co-alition partner while raising their own stocks, then this could work to National’s benefit.
Boy, I would love a job where you can piss off 95% of my customers and still keep my job, with benefits.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Peters has lost huge credibility over this issue but maybe just maybe, now is not the time to make the hay.
Let everything settle down over the next few weeks, then after Rice, see where the cards lie.
If the Nats rip into him now, they risk accusations of vicious nastiness at a tragic time and you can bet he would play that card well and endlessly.
While remaining aloof the Nats retain options but don’t abrogate their ability to enter the fray at a more appropriate moment.
On a side issue, Kathryn Ryan’s reigning in of Hooten was notable on Radio Left Wing this morning. Perhaps Nicky’s made them weally weally scared.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
IMHO HC missed a golden opportunity here, to suspend WP and set up a thorough investigation. It might have collapsed her government and forced the election a bit early but she’d have gone into it waving an integrity banner that would be difficult to diminish. Could have moved many undecideds over, brought many drifters home. Thank god she didn’t see the opportunity for what it was. And once the questions start in the House tomorrow, actually well before that, the window will have slammed shut.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Also, gotta say, thank you, DPF, for keeping up with this in such illuminating detail. Great job.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Peter’s has lost his mojo and I think he knows it. If he was to resign over this matter, are we facing a snap election?
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
Brian Henry looked like an old possum , immobilised, panicked and killed by traffic. A younger, smarter possum would have seen the car coming and quickly run away to live another day.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Big Bruv
The House can remove the Speaker and appoint someone else, but this would seem to be a ‘confidence’ issue. However Labour has Jim’s vote, would have NZ First vote and would get the Greens and / or United Future vote. Therefore it won’t happen.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 9:36 pm
A couple of interesting matters to consider:
Vote:1. A payment made by a third party to meet an obligation of a taxpayer is deemed to be income to that taxpayer – where is the IRD in all this? If Glenn’s $100K was a gift and Glenn paid no gift duty, then Winston as the donee is liable for the duty.
2. Brian Henry is a barrister sole and is prevented by law from operating a trust account. If he received the funds from Glenn on behalf of Winston he is in breach of the law and the ethical rules of his profession.
Where are all the “investigative” journalists who should be asking appropriate questions?
July 21st, 2008 at 9:39 pm
If key does not bring it up in a leader’s debate then the media will forget about it in a few days, and so will most of the proletariat…
I don’t think so. The media won’t forget about it, but it remains to be seen whether they write any decent stories on it with some hard questions to the relevant people. Like:
How much gift duty has Winston Peters paid the IRD? If none, how much does Miss Clark think he should pay?
Will Helen make Peters pay back the 100k? If not, what is going to do about her Ministers receiving donations for ministerial work disguised as donations for legal costs? What does that say about her adherence to the Cabinet Manual as chair of the Cabinet? Particularly as she had the cabinet manual amended to accommodate Winston Peters. What would be a question of privilege if this isn’t -and if the speaker deems it isn’t, what is the relevance of the privileges committee?
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 9:48 pm
I am trying to remember that $40,000 for court costs but wasn’t there some doubt about getting it paid and Winston when he eventually paid it made some public spectacle over its payment. If the 40k came from the legal defence “fund” is Peters trying to tell us he asked NO QUESTIONS when this fund suddenly became sufficiently enriched to pay the 40k????
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 10:03 pm
Margaret Wilson, do something that H1 and H2 disapprove of, like refer Winston to the priveleges committee ? You would have to say that one would need to be an absolute optimist to believe that that would happen, because it ain’t going to. You have to remember that there are two sets of laws in NZ, one for Labour party functionaries and MPs, and their supporters in parliament, and another for the rest of us. And according to the nome, RRM, Tane, and the rest of the trotteristas, that’s the way it should be. So get used to it, OK.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 10:06 pm
All donations to Ministers have to be approved by the Prime Minister, according to the Cabinet Manual. So why didn’t the NZ First Lawyer advise the Prime Minister of this given that he is legally required to advise the PM more so than his own client, Winston Peters.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Winston needs a further donation from Glenn to pay the still outstanding debt of $158K that he owes me, you and every other taxpayer. Can no one get a grip on the slippery little chap?
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 10:09 pm
National need to grow a spine and catagorically rule out having anything to do with NZ First as long as peters is the leader. I’m not holding my breath for this to happen though.
I think its shocking that Key and the nats are prepared to deal with Winston, yet have ruled out anything to do with Douglas.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 10:13 pm
MikeE – absolutely agree. Cabinet table to prison. One way, non-stop ticket. The average ‘integrity score’ of the inmates would drop though.
Vote:July 21st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
I blame National, all those years that Winnie spent as a Nat MP taught
Vote:him bad habits.
Key had an unpaid library fine, I am shocked, I thought he was one of those boring types that even paid parking tickets
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
While all you of the Rabid Right are jerking of over the thought that Peters might finally meet his match, i have a prediction for you.
Vote:Peters will beat this once again as he always does and then will get stuck in to John Key, Porky Pig, and the rest of the National has beens.
A prediction for you all, National – Nil Peters – 2
so keep on jerking guys that’s all your going to have left to do come election time.
July 22nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
I agree, national have a huge opportunity here. There are heaps of generally-labour-or-green voters out there who are irritated beyond all measure by all the crap labour’s been up to recently and the lack of focus of the greens, and are likely to stay home from the polls. Tying a vote to national with a clear ‘this is a vote to bury Winston Peters’ would be the most attractive thing I can imagine from them.
That’d make going to the polls a positive pleasure.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 7:10 am
“Winston’s lawyer looked very slippery on Close Up.” WTF do you expect from a lawyer who deals with winston, of course he’s eel like!
Now it seems the Minister of Racing is getting $9995 donations from racing industry people and scampi……….again I say: JK either grow balls, get on the viagra or get out!
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 8:21 am
Well, Dalley, you’ve certainly put a new spin on the old saying “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.” Dog bites Dalley, and the dog it was that died…
Still, nice to see that you’ve no problem with Winnie showing open contempt for any ethical standards whatsoever. You may live to regret that when the tame Labour lapdog goes dingo…
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 8:27 am
For all those who are shortsighted enough to urge the Nats to go for Winston’s jugular and destroy him politically, just take a deep breath and consider the situation for a minute.
HC and the gummint is the real and only possible target here. Everything is tracking nicely so why shift the focus? If the right enquiry can be conducted that links tyhe Labour Party with soliciting the donations to WP to keep him sweet, AND if there can be a shred of evidence discovered that ties Labour to the Owen Glen offer to the Maori Party, the ensuing public savaging will make what happened to Don Brash over the EB’s look like a Sunday School picnic.
Remember, the endgame is the total public humiliation and destruction of Labour and HC. Winnie will go down with them as collateral damage a bit like a piece of dogshit on a shoe and is not worth the cost of a tissue to wipe it off in terms of where the focus must lie.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 10:42 am
I made a submission on Doug Wollerton’s Deletion of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, asking the Speaker of the House Margaret Wilson to summons herself before the Justice & Electoral Select Committee to state why she as the Attorney General, when introducing the Care of Children Bill on June 10 2003 abrogated the public interest and her responsibility to section 6 through section 7 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights 1990, tabling a report on s7 of that Act on June 11th and not on June 10 as the section demands. This was a ‘manner & form’ issue and did not relate to the content of the report. Read: Westco Lagan & Co v Attorney General 2002. Needless to say both my request to appear before the committee to talk to the point was ignored and, more obviously, the Speaker did not order herself to appear before the Committee to provide any explanation.
The point above is to state that some issues on ‘privilege’ are simply ‘too hard’.
Politics are not run in the public interest at all; they have evolved into a more simple representation of the interests of the elected politicians and those who can wield the power to play to the biases of that interest.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 2:04 pm
David I agree with you. National need to state that their cabinet will be one of integrity and that ruled out any post election negotiations with a New Zealand First party led by Winston, then drop the matter completely except as it reflects on Liabour. The spotlight needs to be kept on Clark and Liabour, not on Peters.
Vote:July 22nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Political Busker
Right ON Politics by the Politicans For the Politicans and against the Citizens
Vote: