Editorials on Peters
August 18th, 2008 at 10:37 am by David FarrarBoth the Dom Post and NZ Herald editorials are on Winston Peters and the Privileges Committee. First the Dom Post:
…Prime Minister Helen Clark should be telling Mr Peters to abandon his usual policy of evasion, bluster and bullying, and answer clearly and honestly the serious questions that surround the funding arrangements of his party.
She should start with telling Mr Peters that his continued presence in her Government depends on him being able to satisfy the privileges committee that he has done no wrong, and at the same time, tell her members on the committee that she expects them to pursue the issue with as much vigour as the Serious Fraud Office is. With 48 per cent of those polled saying he should be stood down, and only 37 per cent wanting him to stay, he is a liability now, and Miss Clark should be minimising the collateral damage to her party by stopping his shenanigans or stopping his enjoyment of the baubles of office.
Alas, I suspect the Labour MPs will ask few questions, or patsy ones if they do.
Now the Herald:
Parliament polices itself through a “privileges committee” of senior members from the different parties. Tonight, the committee begins an inquisition of Winston Peters that should raise questions of financial accountability that he has chosen not to answer in public. The hearing tonight will be open to the press at his request, but neither he nor his lawyer, Brian Henry, is taking the exercise very seriously. Mr Henry has said, “Nothing about the privileges committee bothers me at all. It could be a bit of fun.”
I hope MPs will ask detailed questions, which will allow them to come to a conclusion. At a minimum they need to get very clear details of why the money was donated, who it was paid to, what accounts did it go into, and what bills were covered by it.
The questions these facts raise are too serious to ignore even if the attention is working to Mr Peters’ political advantage. In many other political systems they are questions no public figure could ignore; courts and constitutions would hold him to account. Here we have only the privileges committee, unless the Serious Fraud Office, which Labour and NZ First are about to abolish, decides to investigate.
The MPs on the Privileges Committee need to, in my opinion, ask detailed foreesnic questions over the money, and not let it get distracted by theatrics.
An issue that should also be canvassed is if the rules around the Register of Interests are so flimsy that a $100,000 donation from person seeking a diplomatic appointment from the Foreign Minister, need not be declared by the Foreign Minister if it goes towards his legal bills, then what use is there in having a Register? Can anyone argue that this sort of situation should not be disclosed?
August 18th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Question. Do the MPs sitting on the PC have technical advisers (e.g. forensic accountants) whispering in their ears to make sure they ask the right questions in the right order?
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 10:52 am
“Can anyone argue that this sort of situation should not be disclosed?”
Only Winston and of course the govt who need his support.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 10:59 am
Just for a moment forget all the other monies except for Owen Glenns.
Vote:Now Winnie has said his lawyer did receive this.
This money went towards Winnie’s legal bills, hence he personally profited.
On this alone, surely surely surely, he is guilty.
Any further questions required? No!!! Not on this one anyway.
August 18th, 2008 at 11:02 am
DPF
Are privilege committee hearings open to the public?
[DPF: Yes]
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 11:05 am
They just work for us bb, they don;t consider themselves accountable to us though for some reason.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Have a look at New Zealand First’s philosphy: it claims to put New Zealanders and New Zealand first, but as a number of the blogs have pointed it would be more apt to call it “Winston First”
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Tonight, the committee begins an inquisition of Winston Peters
Some might wish that it was conducted… ‘Spanish’ style
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 11:20 am
ACT: To make political trouble for Winston Peters. To broaden the committee’s interest to other donations, including Bob Jones’ donation via the Spencer Trust and secret donations from donors such as the Vela Brothers and Suminovich Fisheries.
National: To minimise aggravation to Winston Peters, as a possible post-election kingmaker. To demonstrate a compelling case for calling Owen Glenn without it looking as though it wants to put Peters through a kangaroo court.
Power before principles, as always.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10527579
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Our Dear Leader picked up the turd by the clean end, now she can pretend it doesn’t smell. Admitting now that the turd smells is admitting that her desperation for power corrupted her government, and so she will just go on holding the turd- and pretending that it doesn’t smell.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 11:32 am
Getstaffed: excuse my ignorance but I always thought “Spanish style” was alternative name for “pearl necklace” ? Guess I could check Wikipedia.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Unless the Priviledges Committee can demonstrate an appropriate level of good governance behaviour then it will have bought the Parliament into disrepute.
One is not holding ones breath.
On a brighter note one understands the SFO may be acting with more tenacity than was first anticipated and that Luigi and his little legal mate are going to have the blowtorch rammed down their Yfronts and turned up to full blast.
Oh joy of joys
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Reb
you missed the most important one.
Whitewash and move on – the ultimate power at any price as seen with Taito Field….
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Big Bruv: This one is open to the public, but it can be closed on objection from any member, (but Winston has said he wants it in public, so I am not sure who would object)
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
I’m wondering if it will be shown on Sky’s Parliament channel?
is there any appeal from the priveleges committee? what’s the process from here? priveleges committee makes a report and recommendation to the house which is voted on there?
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Maybe ACT should object? The publicity seems to be making Winston more obdurate. Take that away, and all that remains is a beating before the committee?
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
just been to a lunch function that Rodney spoke to .he outlined the questions that the PC should ask Luigi and Henry and why.
But of course none of these questions will get asked.
The PC are too gutless and only worried about their political arses. Good Morals and ethics are a stranger to each and ewveryone of these miserable parasites.
It will be yet another whitewash by the venal and feral dog turds on the soles of my shoes
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
GD: Heather Roy is on the privileges committee. Do you think the chair will be game to shut it down whilst she still has questions? Could be great publicity for her if she sticks to her guns on it.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
Shounds like that was shome
lushlunch there, gdYou’re correct, none of Rodney’s questions will get asked in the Privileges Committee. It’s a charade, with each move choreographed in advance and the outcome all but pre-determined. Like any decision reached in Parliament is negotiated behind closed doors by a handful of people and the “debate” we peasants are allowed to see just gives poseurs the chance to preen – hence Brian Henry’s flippancy. He’s looking forward to the opportunity to have the spill from the spotlight shining on his client fall on him.
And even if they were to find against Peters the list of “penalties” they can apply are laughable, like requiring an apology (aka another chance for some Alice in Wonderland street theatre).
The real investigation – if there’s going to be one – will come from the SFO. They’re now sitting on information from Rodney, Sir Bob, myself and others. Forget the Privileges Committee… as many people as possible need to be asking, on talkback, in letters to the editor and in person to the SFO when they’re going to launch a thorough probe, not restricted to one donation but to the overall question of NZF’s finances.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 4:29 pm
Rex It was an alcohol free lunch sadly. I understand Sir Bob has decided not to proceed which is a real blow as he is one person who could really have got some action.
PaulL Heather will do her best but Simon Power and the other Nats wont want to push too far.
Such are the ironies of MMP that a politican can stand accussed of such heinous moral and ethical behaviour and yet the so called highest Court in the land lacks the balls to act in a principled manner.
This is why the Parliament has become a sick governance joke. Whilst is makes laws for others it is incapable of acting to the same standards.
It is an irrelevancy and so some like myself regard it as merely a 3 ring circus full of clowns providing expensive entertainment for us.
The trick is to not let its inhabitants control your life and they cant if you are financially independent of them
This is why they favour WFF and student loans so the populace are in debt to them.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
Winston old chap, listen we don’t want to get to tough here tonight OK we just want some simple answers because you are actually a member like we are.
Listen here sunshine with respect of your allegations you come here tonight to accuse me and you haven’t got one shred of evidence to substantiate your baseless claims – so I don’t have to answer any questions until you produce this evidence here.
The problem Mr Peters is this – Mr Hide has presented us with some allegations here which we will table now.
Look here you can’t demand I come in here to listen to a Kangaroo court from baseless facts from a yellowed member who has nothing less than a full out vendetta because I exposed corrupt practice with one of their former members 12years ago. And what’s more that member- he is just covering up the real goings on in his party full of big money backers,
Oh so your saying they are baseless allegations well (we might need you as a coalition partner yet) I guess we have to give you the benefit of the doubt to be fair.
So Mr Hide is there any other facts,
No there is not,
Listen here sunshine Ive been around this place longer than you have and I’ll have you know that the real problem you should be looking into is the National Party they are the biggest crooks around , that Waitemata trust that they have you should investigate that!! In fact our Spencer Trust is a secret trust to help finance my legal and other expenses whereas the Waitemata Trust is openly financing the National Party and thats terrible !!!!
Oh dear is that right well we should look into that then shouldn’t we!!
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Latest news from the Privileges Committee
“Costs of $40,000 awarded to Mr Clarkson were paid out of Mr Henry’s pocket – something the lawyer said Mr Peters would not have known until this evening.”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4660474a6160.html
Surely this is a gift from Mr Henry to Winnie. Winnie and Henry can claim that Winnie didn’t know who paid the $40k, but he sure as heck would have known the PERSONAL DEBT was paid off by someone else. FFS what a crook.
Vote:August 18th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
From that stuff story: Mr Peters had claimed the email was a fake until his lawyer Mr Henry told him on July 18 the money had been handed over to pay his legal costs.
This should really read: Mr Peters had claimed the email was a fake until his lawyer Mr Henry told the public on July 18 the money had been handed over to pay his legal costs. [at which time Winnie changed his spin]
Winnie knew. The idea that he could have been in the dark is about as likely as Sue Bradford being appointed to the business roundtable.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 8:50 am
I listened to National Socialist Radio’s summary this morning and the word;
Vote:‘CHAMPERTY’
came to mind about all this pay gifts to the barrister carry on.
Could somebody much more knowledgable than me on the law please tell me if I am wrong to think champerty in this affair.
August 19th, 2008 at 9:05 am
The privileges committee charade continues with vintage Winnie, spitting venom at everyone within range.
I want a Lawyer like Henry: Doesn’t ask for payment of fees; Settles client debts from own pocket; organises fundraising activities without direction. A saint surely?
Pah! I want the committee offer Glenn the option to testify. If Winnie is guilty of accepting bribes in return for a consulship then he’ll be rightly nailed… and I hope jailed. If not, then Glenn’s testimony will give Winnie the clean slate he so vehemently claims he deserves.
Vote:August 19th, 2008 at 9:31 am
While I refuse to listen to Radio left wing I do note that talk back is almost unanimous in its condemnation of Peters with one exception, that exception is Michael Laws.
Why on earth is Michael Laws still defending Peters?, as far as I know Laws is not involved with NZF any longer so I fail to see the connection or why Laws would risk his “reputation” by supporting such a shyster.
Vote: